Defeating Depop—17 Reasons to have married sex wthout condoms

Birth control in the Christian West is largely a modern, 20th Century phenomenon. But this is not because Christians were unaware of contraception before that time or had no access to it. They certainly did. Rather, they had large families with many children because Christian leaders taught that contraception was wrong.

Accordingly, the Christian West was a growing civilization until the 20th Century, but is now dying and surrendering to a culture of death. It is clearly fair to connect these two phenomena, and it is fair to ask if our forefathers got it right, and we got it wrong.

(The following links will take you to an older website, more clickable with pics. Read it either place.)

1. Let’s start with Forgiveness and Mercy.

2. Is the West really dying?

3. What does the Bible say about birth control?

4. The Early Church and Church Fathers clearly condemned birth control.

5. The Early Church knew all about oral contraception and condoms.

6. The Early Church clearly distinguished between contraception and abortion.

7. The Early Church did not believe each sperm contained a “tiny baby.”

8. Revisiting Onan who “spilled his seed.” Why was he killed?

9. Male seed is viewed as very precious, even if not a child.

10. Luther and Calvin say Onan was killed for abusing seed.

11. Why do the Church Fathers call contraception “murder”?

12. Birth control pills cause abortions. The science is settled.

13. After 2000 years, the Orthodox Church now allows for contraception.

14. Hope for the future of Christendom—Ethiopia

15. Why is Satan so intent to stop creation of more people?

16. What next? Some practical tips for the feeble.

17. Sincere questions for Bishops and Christian leaders.

 

1. Let’s start with Forgiveness and Mercy.

There will be almost no one who reads this article who has not practiced contraception at some point. When we get to the sin of “wasting seed,” there will likely be few to no male readers who are without guilt. (As the old locker room joke goes: “Nine out of ten guys masturbate, and the tenth is a damn liar.”) Many readers have likely used the pill regularly, which we will show without question causes abortions over time.

My purpose for this article is not to heap condemnation upon you (and me). God’s love, mercy, and forgiveness is greater than all of our shortcomings. “Love covers a multitude of sins.” (I Peter 4:8). Jesus told the sinful woman she loved much, because she had been forgiven much (Luke 7:47). We are instructed like Peter to forgive our brother 70 times 7 times a day (Matt. 18:22), and certainly God is willing to do the same for us. My purpose is to suggest a clear path back to life, to steer our ship away from the culture of death that we live in and toward a society—at least in our Christian circles—that reflects the fruitfulness, health, and hopeful future that our forefathers once practiced.

Mozart right) was the last of 7 children. Beethoven was the 3rd of 8 children.

This ship may not turn around for a long time. It may sail to other countries beyond the West. Our small efforts at this point in our lives to reverse the effects of contraception may resemble the final plea of the thief on the cross. Yet, his prayer has resounded around the world for all generations. So also can our humble efforts of repentance make a difference in this area of sexuality—one that can be so difficult for us to inspect, both in our own lives and that of our society. I sincerely ask you to read further, examine the evidence, and ask God for wisdom for what is true—and the courage to act on it.

***

2. Is the West really dying?

Yes. As the saying goes, “Demography is destiny.”

In 1913, Europe had more people than China. At that time, Europe and the U.S. comprised 33 percent of the world’s people. In 2003 that number declined to 17 percent. Today it is 12 percent. Not a single Western nation has a birth rate to sustain the population (2.1 children per woman). Some countries have a rate as low as 1.2 children. The U. S. birth rate of 1.9 is deceptive, skewed by non-indigenous, migrating families that birth many children.1

From now until 2050, Europe will lose 33 million of its current population. Greece will fall below 10 million while neighboring Turkey will grow from 80 to 95 million. Africa alone will add 1.3 billion people to the world population.2

“Europe will continue to shrink, which is worsening it’s economic problems,” declares the Washington Post, which notes that even China is in trouble. “The Asian century could be followed by the African century. As China shrinks, it’s workforce will get smaller precisely when it needs them most.”3

Islam is now the fastest growing religion in the United States as well as the world. They are projected to comprise 25 percent of the global population by 2030. 

The past two generations have witnessed an “epochal event: the fall of Christendom,” writes Pat Buchanan in Suicide of a Superpower. Europeans, once Christian, are being replaced by people of another faith.4

The slow but sure-to-be victorious immigration process of Africans and Asians into Europe was predicted in 1974 by Algerian president Houari Boumedienne. “They will burst in to conquer,” he said. “Victory will come to us through the wombs of our women.”5

The prospects are grim for stopping the conquest. Low birth rates cause a “vicious circle” according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). “Fewer children today imply fewer women of childbearing age twenty years from now, so the cumulative momentum of current low birth rates will be difficult to reverse.” Though still mathematically possible, “such a recovery would be unprecedented in human history.”6

Fewer young workers means fewer people supporting the pensions and health care of the older generations. Riots in Greece and other parts of Europe are rooted in these now lopsided Western economies. The U.S. may not be far behind. “You can’t keep going with this completely upside-down age distribution, with the pyramid standing on its point,” said a spokesman for the Population Reference Bureau. “You can’t have a country where everybody lives in a nursing home.”7

Unlike the West, Russia is keenly aware of their predicament, as they strive to recover from a 1.16 birth rate when Communism was overthrown in 1991. The government now offers incentives for children, the equivalent in U.S. dollars to a lower middle-class income. Parents of seven children are awarded a medal, The Order of Parental Glory. Russia has instituted a national holiday on Sept. 12, Day of Conception or Procreation Day—colloquially “Make a Baby Day”—where citizens get the day off to produce children. The birth rate rose to 1.71 in 2013 and continues to increase. About 1.9 million babies were born in Russia in 2015, up from 1.5 million in 2005. “The rise is slight, but it is still a rise,” said a hopeful President Vladimir Putin.8

Western Christians have been quick to point to a “culture of death” for the cause of our imminent decline and repose. Abortion, assisted suicide, moral decay have all been targeted, and rightly so, as contributors to the problem. However, ending all abortions in the West would hardly begin to solve our demographic crisis.9 The root of the problem is contraception. 

We all are familiar with the biblical maxim, “Ye shall know them by their fruit.” What is the fruit of 20th Century Christians breaking with 2000 years of tradition and adopting birth control as an option? Did we really know more than our “backward” forbearers? Or were our parents right all along?

***


3. What does the Bible say about birth control?

On the surface, not so much.

There is the strange and anomalous story of Onan, who was killed by God after “spilling his seed on the ground.” We will examine that in detail later.

Beyond that, there are only positive commands to have children—and curses associated with those who don’t. But there is no specific commandment in the bible not to use contraception in and around, and during, the time you follow God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.”

Dwight Eisenhower (left) was the 3rd of 7 boys. When a reporter asked if she was proud of her son, Mrs. Eisenhower replied, “Which one?”

Nevertheless, the Church Fathers are quite clear in their condemnation of contraception, without exception. And so were Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley. (I have two audiences when I write: those from my Protestant heritage and those in my now Orthodox tradition. Please work with me as I strive to serve both.)

Protestants can say the Fathers don’t matter, just go with the bible. However, that won’t get you very far. (More on that subject here.)You won’t be able to prove that polygamy is a sin—the bible doesn’t condemn it, but the Fathers do. The Fathers also condemn slavery, but the bible is not so vocal on it. For these reasons, and many others, Christians have historically relied on the Tradition to understand how to live. And, as we will see in the next section, the Tradition has been very clear on contraception. (And so were the Protestant founders, who otherwise bucked tradition.)

And remember, these same Fathers declared to us the teachings of the divinity of Christ, the full humanity of Christ, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which books are in the bible, and other foundational doctrines. They are obviously worth listening to.

However, just under the surface, the bible strongly insinuates that birth control should be avoided. The scriptures are deafening in their praise of God’s blessing through children, and the curse of few children and barrenness.

Let’s not forget that the very first command in the bible is to “be fruitful and multiply.” Did that end? Did the New Testament rescind this command? Isn’t the first of anything pretty important?

Consider these verses for demonstrating the blessing of being obedient to the First Commandment:

Psalm 127:3-5 Behold, children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they shall not be ashamed, when they speak with their enemies in the gate.”

1 Chronicles 25:4-5 “Of Heman, the sons of Heman: Bukkiah, Mattaniah, Uzziel, Shebuel and Jerimoth, Hananiah, Hanani, Eliathah, Giddalti and Romamti-ezer, Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir, Mahazioth. All these were the sons of Heman the king’s seer to exalt him according to the words of God, for God gave fourteen sons and three daughters to Heman.”

1 Chronicles 26:4-5 “And obed-edom had sons: Shemaiah the first-born . . . Peullethai the eighth; God had indeed blessed him.”

The lack of children is clearly a curse:

Deuteronomy 7:12-13: “God will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb…. You shall be blessed above all peoples; there shall be no male or female barren among you….”

Hosea 9:14: The prophet says of the fallen Ephraim: “Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.”

Genesis 30:1: Rachel pleads to Jacob not to be cursed: “Give me children, or I’ll die!”

Why does God bring husband and wife together?

Malachi 2:15: “But did he not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring.”

 

***

 

4. The early church and Church Fathers clearly condemned birth control.

I’m going with “early” Church Fathers, because anything in the West after the schism in A. D. 1054 will be suspect to the Orthodox. I’m also going sparingly with Augustine, the most vocal of those against contraception, because he’s “too Catholic” for Protestants. And some Orthodox aren’t too crazy about him either.

As you read these, be prepared for the upcoming sections:

  • The early church was very aware of contraception, which was prevalent in Rome.

  • The early church made clear distinctions between contraception and abortion.

  • The early church did not believe “tiny babies” were in each sperm.

  • We also discuss why the Fathers use the term murder in relation to birth control.

The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the ‘sacrament of love.
—St. John Chrysostom 
Homily on Ephesians 20 (4th Century)

Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit? Where there are medicines of sterility? Where there is murder before birth?
St. John Chrysostom
Commentary on Galatians (4th Century)

Thomas Jefferson was the 3rd of 10 children.

They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption.
—St. Epiphanius
Medicine Chest Against Heresies (4th Century)

Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented.
St. Augustine
Commentary on Genesis 38 (5th Century)

Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.
Clement of Alexandria
The Instructor of Children (2nd Century)

Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [oral contraceptive] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fertile? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell.
—Caesarius of Arles
Sermons 1:12 (6th Century)

On the last quote, please read my comments on Forgiveness and Mercy if you skipped over them. The point is not to condemn, but to communicate how seriously the Fathers took the matter of contraception.

Also keep in mind that there are no competing views among the Early Church Fathers—or any Fathers or saints for that matter—advocating for the use of birth control in any form or for any occasion. These quotes are only samples, but they sample a single opinion in the Orthodox Tradition of not approving contraception.

 

.

***

5. The Early Church knew all about oral contraception and condoms.

In fact, contraception was very prevalent in the Roman Empire and a serious issue. The ancient world had been using contraceptives for thousands of years. The earliest written documentation appears in a 1900 B.C. Egyptian document.

“The Kahun papyrus has three different formulas,” writes John T. Noonan, a U.S. Appellate Court Judge, Ninth Circuit, who authored Contraception: A History of its Treatment by Catholic Theologians and the Canonists (Harvard, 1968)—considered the definitive work on the subject. Noonan points to several formulas: “Pulverized crocodile dung in fermented mucilage; honey and sodium carbonate to be sprinkled in the vulva” and long lists of potions in the ancient world involving iron rust, barrenwort, bark of white poplar, the kidney of a mule, rose oil, aloes, and many other medicines of the time. 1

Jonathan Edwards, 18th Century revivalist, had 11 children with his wife Sarah. He himself was the 5th of 11 children.

Condoms were in use in 3000 B.C. when King Minos of Crete used the bladders of goats to block conception. In 1000 B.C. there is record of Egyptians using a linen cloth around the penis. Other surviving illustrations point to use of condom-like devices in Rome and ancient Europe.2

Ancient Greece knew of contraception. Hippocrates—who gave us the Hippocratic Oath—writes about a contraceptive known as misy, which is “clearly distinguished from an abortifacient,” says Noonan. Aristotle cites the use of frankincense and ointment of lead, noting that “if the lips of the cervix are smooth, conception is difficult.” Pliny cites various types of plants for contraception.3

Birth control became such a problem in Rome that Emperor Augustus passed laws rewarding childbirth and punishing those choosing not to have children. Childless adults could not hold high offices and childless spouses were punished in the will. Nevertheless, “childlessness prevailed,” wrote Tacitus, condemning an age where “even one child is thought a burden preventing the rewards of childlessness.”4

In this context, the early church forged its longstanding commitment to childbearing and its condemnation of birth control.

 

 ***

6. The Early Church clearly distinguished between contraceptions and abortion.

Quotes from the Church Fathers make it clear that they made a distinction between contraception and abortion.

Say St. John Chrysostom: “That which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome [having] mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live.”

Archduchess Maria Theresa had 16 children, including Maria Antoinette, Queen of France, the Queen of Naples and Sicily, the Duchess of Parma, and two Holy Roman Emperors, Joseph II and Leopold II. Depicted at age 13, the flowers she holds represent her fertility and expectations to bear children in adulthood.

These medicines carry out “murder which precedes coming into being,” Chrysostom continues. “Indeed, it is something even worse than murder, for it does not abort a pregnancy, but prevents impregnation.” (Homilies on Matthew 28:5)

The Fathers’ use of the term murder for contraception will be discussed later.

“Some drink sterility before sex and commit the murder of a man yet unsown.”
St. Jerome
Letters 22:13, (4th Century)

John IV Nesteurtes, the 6th Century Patriarch of Constantinople, known as “St. John the Faster,” also makes the clear distinction between contraption and abortion. According to Tikhon Alexander Pino, from St. John’s writings “two kinds of anti-pregnancy medications are explicitly distinguished—contraceptives and abortifacients, the one preventing conception (νὰ μὴ ἐγγαστρωθοῦν), the other killing the child after conception (ὅταν τὰ συλλάβουν)—the latter being more sinister.”1

A Greek penitential ascribed to St. John the Faster states: “If someone to satisfy his lust or in deliberate hatred does something to a man or woman so that no children be born of him or her, or gives them to drink (pharmakon), so that he cannot generate or she conceive, let it be held as homicide.”2

***

7. The Early Church did not believe that each sperm contains a “tiny baby.”

The Church Fathers followed Aristotle, who did not believe each sperm contained a tiny baby that needed only to find rest in a woman’s womb. This is a theory known as preformationism, more popular in the 18th Century then in early church times. Aristotle held to epigenesis, the belief that seeds go through various stages. He believed that a man did not become human until 40 days after conception. (History of Animals 7:3). For Aristotle, this was also the time of ensoulment. Tertullian believed the embryo, after conception, has a soul. (The Soul 25.2, 37.2)

The Casons have 18 children (2017) and are trying for their 19th. They moved from California to Indiana, and are not driven by religious convictions. They “just like it what way.”

Writes Noonan: “That no classical writer literally identified semen with man is clear from a consideration of the leading theories on ensoulment.”1

Then why do the Church Fathers so often equate contraception with “murder”? To help understand their mindset, we need to look at the Old Testament story of Onan who “spilled his seed on the ground,” and why the Fathers considered this such a grievous sin. 

***

 

8. Revisiting Onan who “spilled his seed.” Why was he killed?

Seasoned biblical aficianados will know the usually given answer to why Onan was killed. First, let’s review his story:

Onan was the son of Judah, the fourth son of Jacob and Leah’s twelve children and one of the future patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel. Judah is an ancestor of the Messiah, and so his story is told in great detail, even the actual gory details of the sex acts involved in the passing along of his seed. This graphic episode about Onan’s seed is oddly placed right in the middle of the long, exciting, dramatic story of Joseph. It never did seem to fit, but it was apparently that important.

Benjamin Franklin was the 15th of 17 children. His father was a candlemaker.

Judah’s oldest son Er was “killed by the Lord.” We aren’t told why. According to Old Testament law, the next brother in line, Onan, was required to raise up children for his deceased brother by impregnating his brother’s widow. Her name was Tamar.

According to Genesis: “But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.” (Gen. 38:6-10)

Most modern theologians interpret this stern action by God, not as a punishment for spilling semen or practicing a form of birth control, but for refusing to obey the law requiring that he raise up a son for his brother. This is a handy interpretation for the 10 out of 10 mentioned earlier in this article. But there is a real problem. The law in Leviticus requires nothing near the death penalty for disobeying it. Deuteronomy 25: 8-10 cites the punishment:

“Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, ‘I do not want to marry her,’ his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, ‘This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.’ That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.”

Losing a shoe or being killed? I think I know which one Onan would have chosen.

And so, the Church Fathers seem to interpret Onan’s offense as a combination of begrudging his brother, using coitus interruptus as a form of birth control, and the sin of masturbation.

In case you missed the earlier section on Forgiveness and Mercy, I suggested you read it now, especially my male readers, before reading the next quote. I may review it myself.

“Masturbation is a sin so abhorrent to God that on account of it He put to death Onan, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, because he was the first to commit the act upon the earth . . . So then, this sin is like a pestilence and corruption of the human race, and causes masturbators to live here and now a disgraceful and miserable life, and to be tormented eternally in the next life in the fire of hell.”
—Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite
Homily on I Thessalonians (18th Century)

Again, the point here is not to judge or condemn or depress. The point is to know what the standard is for us. The standard is total sexual purity. Failure to reach that level requires confession, repentance, receiving forgiveness and launching a new effort for purity, even if those efforts are 70 x 7 times a day. (Well, maybe 7.) There is a reason we pray “Lord have mercy” hundreds of times in the liturgy.

One may ask why Onan was killed for wasting his seed, and yet the 10 out of 10 men in modern America are not killed. I don’t know the answer, but I will offer an insight. In the New Testament, Ananias and Saphira were killed when they lied to the apostles about giving a large financial gift to the church (Acts 5:1-11). That’s sounds pretty rough as well. No one today seems to get killed by God for embezzlement, much less simply lying.

I will suggest that the Spirit of God was very active and powerful during those initial years with the Church. Miracles were common. Major themes were being formed for generations to come. A small sin in the midst of that purity and power had more ramifications. So also, an early seed bearer for the Messiah—from the child of the promise, Isaac, Onan’s great grandfather—may have had similarly strong ramifications. This is just my speculation.

For those of you with pastoral concerns regarding how to counsel young men with the raging desires and sexual frustrations so prevalent in our modern day, I will admit that we live in tough times. A hundred years ago, our great grandparents knew better, and the men were often married off at 17 or 18 and the women as early as 13 or 14.

Young men should be directing their extraordinary energy toward carrying out the First Commandment, siring children, laboring to provide, and helping others in the community do the same. Instead, we place them in situations to place banana peels on door knobs late at night, haze one another, bring life to the frat party, race each other on the highways, or, even worse today, kill each other in gang warfare.

Did our ancestors have a better idea for how to handle sexual energy?

 

 ***

9. The male seed is viewed as very precious, even if not a child.

It is difficult to get a sense of the Church Fathers’ condemnation of contraception without understanding their overall sense that the male seed is something precious, something more important than simply another bodily fluid. As noted earlier, the Church Fathers did not believe an actual human being resided in the semen. But, at the same time, they understood—in a less scientific way than we do today—that the potential for a human being resided in some way in the sperm. And this potential was deserving of special and sacred treatment.

Johann Sebastian Bach had 20 children.

Hints of this can be seen in Hebrews 7:5, where the Apostle Paul argues that Jesus is a greater high priest than the Old Testament Levitical priests—because Jesus is in the line of Melchizedek, the Priest-King who blessed Abraham after a great battle. Since Levi, the distant descendent of Abraham was “in the loins of Abraham,” then Levi was inferior to Melchizedek. There was something special about that seed in Abraham’s loins.

It is worth nothing that several Old Testament laws requiring the death penalty prohibited activities that waste seed, including male to male homosexual sex (Lev. 20:13) and bestiality (Lev. 20:15). No penalty is proscribed for lesbianism—not that is was allowed, but it was not deemed worthy of mention in the levitical law.

Wasting seed provides a clue for understanding another levitical law that is quite odd to this generation. Sex during menstruation required the severe penalty of both the man and the woman “being cut off from among their people.” (Lev. 20:18) This strict precept makes more sense when realizing that the ancients viewed menstruation as the most sterile part of the the woman’s monthly cycle. Therefore, seed was wasted.

Similarly, the historic church required penance for sins of wasting the seed. For example, the Church of England in the 7th Century required penance (no eucharist) for sex between the thighs (1 year), anal sex (7-15 years), and oral sex (7-22 years). The steeper penalty for oral sex, according to some writers, was due to the mouth being the intended receptacle for Christ’s body and blood.1

It is within this larger context of viewing the seed as special and sacred that perhaps the overall reason for banning contraception by the Church Fathers can be best understood: conception is part of the “life-giving process,” and any interruption of such a process is a grave sin.

Noonan, considered the expert by Christians and secularists alike on the church’s historical teachings on contraception, explains it this way:

“St. Lactantius treats homosexuals as parricides: his implication is that they destroy potential human beings. It is entirely in keeping with this approach to treat the users of contraception and abortifacients as parricides or homicides. The description is neither biological nor legal, but moral.”

After quoting Tertullian on abortion, Noonan writes: “The protection of life leads to the prohibition of interference with life at the fetal stage. It is only one step to extend this protection to the life-giving process. The need to protect life, the need to defend procreation—these are the needs which guide the development of Christian thought on contraception.”2

In his article “Sacred Seed, Sacred Chamber,” Orthodox priest Joseph Gleason gives a more positive and poetic summation of the Church’s position: “In the entire universe, there is only one place where a Christian may legitimately issue his seed. His seed is intended for the wife of his youth. She has a sacred chamber, and that chamber is the only place where sexual activity may take place in a holy way.”3

 

***

 


10. Luther and Calvin say Onan was killed for spilling seed.

Martin Luther has much to say about the blessings of children and fertility:

“Although we like and desire it in cattle, yet in the human race there are few who regard a woman’s fertility as a blessing. Indeed, there are many who have an aversion for it and regard sterility as a special blessing. Surely this is also contrary to nature. “1

Regarding Onan, he pointed to his sin of spilling seed: “Therefore Onan, unwilling to perform this obligation, spilled his seed. That was a sin far greater than adultery or incest, and it provoked God to such fierce wrath that He destroyed him immediately.”2

Susannah Wesley was the mother of John and Charles Wesley, founders of Methodism. She had 19 children and was the youngest of 25 children.

And in another place he points to Onan’s act as a crime of nature: “We call it unchastity, yes a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed.”3

Calvin’s views on Onan can be difficult to obtain. Some editions of his commentary on Genesis omit this passage! But the commentary edited by Dr. Ford Battles provides Calvin’s rather strong denunciations, which align with the early Church Fathers’ equating of spilling seed with abortion and murder:

“The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring. This impiety is especially condemned, now by the Spirit through Moses’ mouth, that Onan, as it were, by a violent abortion, no less cruelly than filthily cast upon the ground the off-spring of his brother, torn from the maternal womb. Besides, in this way he tried, as far as he was able, to wipe out a part of the human race.”4

John Wesley provides a similar view of Onan’s sin, and an admonishment to “single persons” to beware:

“Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord – And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.”5

 

***

 

11. Why do the Church Fathers call contraception “murder”?

Several early Church Fathers call birth control “murder,” as seen in earlier quotes. And no others refute those claims. Even the most balanced and “moderate” of the Church Fathers on sexuality and marriage, John Chrysostom, makes the indictment of murder. In fact, he calls it “worse than murder.” After condemning “medicines of sterility” he writes:

“Indeed, it is something worse than murder and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation.” (Homilies on Romans 24)

London surgeon Thomas Greenhill was the last of Elizabeth Greenhill’s 39 children. His father William died before Thomas was born in 1669.

Noonan concludes that Chrysostom is being somewhat rhetorical with the term murder. The penitentials of the Church over the centuries (ordinances for how many years communion is prohibited after confessing a certain sin) actually provide a mixed bag in terms of whether conception is “worse than murder.” Noonan studied 18 penitentials of the Church, all before the schism. Two assign a lighter penance for contraception than homicide. One actually assigns four years for murder and seven years for contraception.1

“It is somewhat beside the point to work out if we really have to take St. John Chysostom literally in saying that contraception is worse than murder,” writes author Christos Hayward. “But it is not beside the point that the Fathers seem to treat a great deal of continuity between contraception, abortion, and infanticide … I can’t think of a way to read the Fathers responsibly and categorically deny that contraception is cut from the same cloth as abortion and infanticide.”

“Contraception attacks life,” concludes Noonan, “a contention with much claim to be heard when embryonic life needed protection, but not intended literally. Beyond this protection of intended life lies the assumption that the life-giving process itself is sacred, a cooperation with God immune from interference.”

 

***

 

12. Birth control pills cause abortions. The science is settled.

Birth control pills cause abortions. You don’t believe this? Consider that you live in a culture that lies about an aborted “fetus” being a baby.

If you or your partner is using the pill, or has in the past, the point is not to condemn (see section on Forgiveness and Mercy). The point is to inform and improve our culture—and to have more kids.

The pharmaceutical industry’s PR literature lies about birth control pills being abortifacients—but not in their scientific literature, which the government requires be submitted. If your Christian doctor tells you differently, he or she is uninformed. Let’s look at the facts:

According to the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR), the health care industry’s standard authority, the pill works in the following three ways:

1. Preventing ovulation

2. Preventing the sperm from reaching a released ovum due to a thickened cervical mucus.

3. “changes in the endometrium, which reduce the likelihood of implantation.”1

“Implantation” is the newly conceived baby looking for it’s first food and nutrients to continue to live and grow. The baby searches for several days to find this food. The birth control pill changes the lining of the uterus so that the child cannot “implant.” So it dies after approximately seven days.

Dr. J. Richard Crout, president of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said birth control pills “inhibit ovulation and change the characteristics of the uterus so that it is not receptive to a fertilized egg.”2

The Handbook of Obstetrics & Gynecology lists the first two methods of the pill, and then the third: “ … endometrial maturation is modified so that implantation is unlikely.3

In its 1984 publication Facts About Oral Contraceptives, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated that birth control pills “make it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant, by causing changes in fallopian tube contractions and in the uterine lining.”4

Some couples may think that today’s pills do not cause these abortions, especially pills with “higher dose” estrogen. However, these statements by the FDA and HHS were made when the estrogen level averaged 150 micrograms of estrogen. Today’s pills average 35 micrograms and those considered “higher” average 50. The lower the estrogen, the higher chance of unintended ovulation, leading to more failed implantations (abortions).5

A spokesperson for Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the pill, confirmed the science: “The lining of the uterus does not become fully developed so that even if an egg does ripen and is fertilized, there is little likelihood that it would become implanted.”6

Syntex, another major pill-manufacturer, says this of the six pills it produces (two types of Brevicon and four of Norinyl): “Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus), and the endometrium (which may reduce the likelihood of implantation).”7

Wyeth, another major manufacturer of pills such as Lo/Ovral, Ovral, Nordette, and Triphasil says the following: “other alterations include…changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.”8

Award winning author and researcher Randy Alcorn, who wrote, Does the Abortion Control Pill cause abortions?, was never able to find a scientific label for a birth control pill in the Physician’s Desk Reference that did not cite implantation (abortion) as one of its methods. This was in 1997, and pills have only increased since then in their percentage of unintended ovulations.

Writes Alcorn: “As of October 1988, the newer lower dosage birth control pills are the only type available in the U.S., by mutual agreement of the Food and Drug Administration and the three major Pill manufacturers: Ortho, Searle and Syntex.”9

Icon of the slaughter of the Holy Innocents, 2,000 children slain by King Herod (Matt. 2:16-18)

Medical journals also confirm the science, including Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology, a standard medical reference: “The production of glycogen by the endometrial glands is diminished by the ingestion of oral contraceptives, which impairs the survival of the blastocyst in the uterine cavity.” (The blastocyst is a fertilized embryo.) The medical textbook Williams Obstetrics states, “progestins produce an endometrium that is unfavorable to blastocyst implantation.”10

With the science so settled, it is not surprising that the enemies of life and proponents of abortion use the abortion effects of the pill as arguments. When the abortion industry faced the reversal of Roe v. Wade during the Supreme Court’s consideration of Webster vs. Reproductive Health in 1989, attorney Frank Sussman argued, “The most common forms of…contraception today, IUDs and low-dose birth control pills…act as abortifacients.”11

Arguing against a Louisiana pro-life law, Tulane Law School Professor Ruth Colker wrote, “Because nearly all birth control devices, except the diaphragm and condom, operate between the time of conception…and implantation …the statute would appear to ban most contraceptives.”12

In 1966 Dr. Alan Guttmacher, former director of Planned Parenthood, said this about the pill’s effect on the uterine lining: “The appearance of the endometrium differs so markedly from a normal premenstrual endometrium that one doubts it could support implantation of a fertilized egg.”13

How often will abortions occur? Every other year, according to J. C. Espinoza, M.D.: “Today it is clear that in at least 5% of the cycles of women on the combined Pill ‘escape ovulation’ occurs. This fact means that conception is possible during those cycles, but implantation will be prevented and the ‘conceptus’ (child) will die. That rate is statistically equivalent to one abortion every other year for all women on the Pill.”14

Researcher and author Randy Alcorn provides a more conservative estimate: “If a fertile and sexually active woman took the Pill from puberty to menopause, she would have a potential of 390 suppressed ovulations. Eliminating those times when she wouldn’t take the Pill because she wanted to have a child, or because she was already pregnant, she might have 330 potentially suppressed ovulations. If 95% of her ovulations were suppressed, this would mean she would have sixteen breakthrough ovulations. If she is fertile and sexually active, a few of those ovulations might end up in a known pregnancy because the second and third mechanisms both fail. Of the other fourteen perhaps nine would never be fertilized, some prevented by the number two mechanism, the thickened cervical mucus, and some attributable to the normal rate of nonpregnancy. And perhaps, as a result of the number three mechanism, she might have five early abortions because, though conception took place, the children could not be implanted in the endometrium. If the same woman took the Pill for only ten years, she might have one or two abortions instead of five. Again, we don’t know the exact figures.”15

Alcorn relates a conversation he had with a direct source: “On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil’s product information department. (Ortho-McNeil is one of the largest Pill manufacturers.) I took detailed notes. … I asked Hill one more time, ‘So you’re saying this is an actual effect that happens, not just a theoretical one?’ He said, ‘Sure—you can actually see what it does to the endometrium and it’s obvious it makes implantation less likely. The only thing that’s theoretical is the numbers, because we just don’t know that.’”

Alcorn also shares his interaction with two drug reps that sold the pill: “On July 2, 1997, I interviewed Karen Witt, who worked for Whitehall-Robins, sister company of Wyeth-Ayerst, from 1986 until August 1995. Both companies are divisions of American Home Products, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations. Mrs. Witt was a sales representative who called on doctors, providing them with product samples and medical information….’we were expected to explain how they worked to physicians. But the approach to the birth control pills was completely different—the approach was, “don’t worry about how they work, the point is they do; don’t ask questions, just give out the samples.”‘ Mrs. Witt said to me, ‘I am not at all quick to use the term “conspiracy.” But I believe there is a definite conspiracy of silence on the part of the manufacturer about the abortive effects of the Pill.’”

Another anonymous rep: “What you’re saying about the Pill is true, and my manufacturer knows it. Management takes pride in the fact that our pills excel at the ‘prevention of nidation’—that exact phrase is routinely used in our product training sessions. They never use the word ‘abortion,’ but by preventing nidation [implantation], that’s what the pills do.”16

Current literature on the pill is deceptive, as they insist the pill only “prevents conception” and does not cause abortions. However, the definition of conception was changed from fertilization of the egg to the time of implantation.

Dr. Eugene F. Diamond, M.D., writing in Focus on the Family’s Physician magazine, states: “Prior to 1976, a ‘contraceptive’ was understood to be an agent that prevented the union of sperm and ovum. In 1976 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), realizing that this definition didn’t help its political agenda, arbitrarily changed the definition. A contraceptive now meant anything that prevented implantation of the blastocyst, which occurs six or seven days after fertilization. Conception, as defined by Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary (27th Edition), became “the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of the blastocyst.’ The hidden agenda in ACOG’s redefinition of ‘contraceptive’ was to blur the distinction between agents preventing fertilization and those preventing implantation of the week-old embryo.”17

In 1998, 26 OB/GYN specialists, members of the American Association of Prolife Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), signed a public statement: “[We] believe that the facts as detailed in this document indicate the abortifacient nature of hormonal contraception. This is supported by the scientific work of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which can, in no way, be confused with a right-to-life organization. We also want to make it clear that we have no desire to cause confusion and division among prolife forces. However, we do want to make it clear that we do desire that all women using the Pill are truthfully and fully informed about all its modes of action [including causing abortions].”18

“Typically, the new person attempts to implant at six days after conception,” writes Alcorn. “If implantation is unsuccessful, the child is flushed out of the womb in a miscarriage that may appear to be nothing more than a normal, even if delayed, menstruation. While there are many spontaneous miscarriages, whenever the miscarriage is the result of an environment created by a foreign device or chemical, it is an artificially induced miscarriage, which is, in fact, an abortion. This is true even if the mother does not intend it, is not aware of it happening, and would be horrified if she knew.”19

Why are doctors, even some pro-life doctors, approving of the pill? Alcorn, who could not find the full scientific documentation from the labels of pill manufacturers, could only get the full explanations from the Physician’s Desk Reference, which drug companies are required by law to notify regarding their complete findings and techniques. Alcorn spoke to a Wyeth employee, who asked not to be identified. In a letter dated August 11, 1997 this person told Alcorn: “Many, probably most, birth control studies are not published. They are never published in their entirety. This is a very competitive business. Companies are not obligated to publish proprietary information.”20

Add money to the root of this evil. Again, if you or your partner have used the pill, remember Forgiveness and Mercy, and go and sin no more.

 

 

***

13. After 2000 years, the Orthodox Church now allows for contraception.

The morphing of the Orthodox Church on contraception can best be demonstrated from the revisions and updates to the book The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware (now Metropolitan Kallistos Ware), considered an authoritative primer for Orthodoxy and at one time perhaps the only book of its type in English.

1963: “Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church.” p. 302

1983: “Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of [artificial birth control]. Others, however, have recently begun to develop a less strict position.” p. 302

1993: “In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail.” p. 296

Islam, the fastest growing religion, also has the highest fertility rate of all religions.

In 1984, Ware said the Church left the matter of contraception “to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father.” But even the spiritual father was abandoned in 1993. Contraception is “best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own conscience.”2

One of those more recent theologians to allow for contraception, Fr. John Meyendorff, writes in Marriage: an Orthodox Perspective: “The Orthodox Church, has never committed itself formally and officially on the issue … it has never been the church’s practice to give moral guidance by providing standard formulas claiming universal validity on questions which actually require a personal act of conscience.”3

Of course, neither has there been a formal, universal statement condemning abortion, yet the Church does not relegate that decision to a personal act of conscience. The question is whether the church through its Fathers, saints, statements and penitentiaries has, like with abortion, made itself clear regarding contraception.

For now, the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) is comfortable with its 1992 statement: “Married couples may express their love in sexual union without always intending the conception of a child. But only those means of controlling conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a fetus already conceived.”4

This contrasts starkly with another 20th Century statement by the Greek Orthodox Church in 1957: “The use of contraceptive devices for the prevention of childbirth is forbidden and condemned unreservedly by the Greek Orthodox Church.”5

In 2000, the Russian Church issued its own statement on contraception, condemning its use for “egoistic” reasons. This is a term that has been used to justify various types and instances for birth control, but the definition is difficult to parse. However, in reading the full paragraph, the overall sense is one of reluctance:

“In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union. The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin. At the same time, spouses are responsible for the comprehensive upbringing of their children. One of the ways to be responsible for their birth is to restrain themselves from sexual relations for a time.”6

 

 

***


14. Hope for the future of Christendom—Ethiopia

There does exist one nation on the earth with a 2000 year Christian tradition and a healthy birth rate. Ethiopia, with five children per woman, has one of the world’s highest fertility rates. Greece’s birth rate is a dismal 1.3 with little hope of restoration. Russia’s rate was 1.16 in 1991 but has recovered to 1.71 in 2013 with hopes of continued growth.

Known by many for their insistence that they protect the Ark of the Covenant in their ancient city, Aksum, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is in communion with the Coptic, Armenian, and Indian Church. With 105 million people and 53 million Orthodox Christians, Ethiopia is by far the largest of the “Oriental Orthodox.” In 2050, Ethiopia’s 188 million people will surpass Russia by 50 million people.1 

Ethiopia will soon be the largest nation in Christendom.

The church in Ethiopia is currently experiencing a major renewal of interest among young people. And they have a lot to teach us. Their roots begin with the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 and his baptism by the Apostle Philip. The Russian Orthodox Church cites Ethiopia as the country where Matthew was martyred. By A.D. 325, Ethiopia’s coins describe a Christian government, which continued for millennia.  They have over a thousand monasteries. The history of Ethiopia and the history of its Orthodox Christian Church have been deeply intertwined. 

The church officially condemns birth control. But efforts are underway by the West to bring contraception to Ethiopia. The use of birth control by Ethiopian women has increased from 8 percent in 2000 to 29 percent in 2014.2 Ethiopia was the largest recipient of family planning assistance in sub-Saharan Africa since 2000. The global health world, which convened in Addis Ababa in November 2013 for an international family planning conference, celebrated Ethiopia as a model of success.3

 

***

 

15. Why is Satan so intent to stop creation of more people?

Most Christians would agree that Satan is behind the abortion industry. But why would he be so interested in preventing the conception of human beings?

I offer the following thoughts as a means for inspiration. It is my own. I do not speak for the Church.

Start with the premise that angelic beings are everywhere, by the billions, maybe trillions—who knows? Daniel 7:10 speaks of “10,000 x 10,000.” In other words, too many to count. Calvin says that “all creatures are animated by angelic motion,”1  so that would mean an angel for every man, woman, animal, and insect.

If the earth has fallen to the Evil One, then all or many of those angels are fallen angels. This adds more meaning to God’s command to Adam to be fruitful and multiply and also to take dominion over the entire earth. It’s going to take a lot of people.

The anonymous wife of 18th Century Russian peasant Feodor Vassilyev had 69 children (16 pairs of twins, 7 sets of triplets and 4 sets of quadruplets). 67 of them survived infancy. Vassilyev’s first wife set the record for most children born to a single woman. Vassilyev also had 18 children with his second wife, making him a father of 87 children in total. (This picture is a representation. No actual photos available.)

“Do you not know that we shall judge angels?” Paul asks the Corinthians (I Cor. 6:3). One way to look at the overall purpose of human history is the changing of the guard from angels to men. In the old covenant, angels ruled God’s people using the law and animals as the tools of instruction. In the new covenant, God is no longer veiled as the Angel of the LORD, but is revealed as Son of Man. Jesus, the God-Man, teaches us face to face.

In the garden, Adam learned from animals. In the law, we learned from animals. (I Cor. 9:9) The angelic creatures have three faces of animals: ox, lion, eagle, and only the fourth is human. “In the Old Testament, it is animal imagery and animal sacrifices,” says James Jordan, who has written extensively on biblical imagery. “When we were children, in the nursery, we had our stuffed animals and the angels were teaching us through them.”2

The book of Revelation captures the transfer from old to new. In the early chapters, the angelic cherubim and seraphim are in the throne room with “10,000 x 10,000” angels in the audience (Rev. 5:11). In Chapter 14, we instead have a host of tens of thousands of people in the air with Christ. Angels decrease and people increase as the book moves forward.

“He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven,” we are told in the book of Hebrews. (1:4) “So he became superior to the angels.”

This great triumph of victory by the humans over the angels is captured in the ancient verses still sung today in the Orthodox Church during the Feast of the Ascension:

The angels were amazed/ seeing a Man more exalted than they.
The Holy Spirit commands the angels:/ “Lift up your heads, O gates!

The cherubim were amazed by Thine Ascension!
They beheld the God of Angels ascending on clouds.

The angelic hosts were amazed with awe,
seeing Thy great love for mankind!

Using similar throne room imagery, the historic church regularly esteems the first of those who crossed through the threshold past the angels to stand with Jesus Christ—Mary, the Mother of God. The church at every service proclaims that she is “more honorable than the cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim.”

The historic church’s Divine Liturgy describes during the priest’s prayer before communion the continuing transfer of leadership, as the following join the mother of God: “forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith.”

More saints and more godly Christians into the throne room make for a transfer of leadership that surprises but pleases the good angels. Yet it must terrify the angels who hate mankind and are willing to use all attempts to prevent their entering this throne room—or better yet, prevent them from ever being conceived.

***

 

16. What next? Some practical tips for the feeble.

We live in a culture of death. All of us, myself included, are victims of the sin and deception. My purpose in writing this article is not to condemn, but rather to raise again the standard of the historic church and move us slowly back to a culture of life.

I don’t expect everyone to change overnight. Some of us can only take small steps. Here are a few to consider:

For those who still cannot yet choose to have more children, for those sterilized, past childbearing age, or those who used the pill and birth control in years past:

1. If you meet someone with a large family, congratulate them.

2. If you must make a crack about messy, irritating, or inconvenient children, make it one for every ten positive comments.

3. Lovingly bear with noisy children in the church service.

4. Encourage your friends to have more children with gentle, subtle, but loving asides.

The Thief on the Cross’s simple and feeble effort of repentance has resounded throughout history.

5. When you condemn our culture of death, add contraception to abortion as a cause.

6. Pray that our culture will have more children.

7. Acknowledge that we are losing economically to the non-Christian East for failure to be fruitful and multiply.

8. Don’t mock the Church Fathers for being ridiculous. Ask sincerely if they may know something you don’t.

 

For those still able to conceive:

1. If you or your spouse is on the pill, switch to something that does not cause abortions.

2. If you are using condoms, switch to Natural Family Planning.

3. If you are using Natural Family Planning, consider having sex during those days that the woman will have the most fulfillment, not just when the man can be gratified.

4. Men, take your sins of spilling seed to confession, receive God’s love and forgiveness, and strive for sexual purity.

5. Try to multiply—which according to math means at least three children.

6. If you have several children already, ask God for the faith and strength to have more.

7. Remember Jesus’s promise that if we do the right thing (“seek first the Kingdom”), he will provide: “Don’t worry about what you will eat, drink, or wear. The pagans chase after these things, but your heavenly Father knows that you need them.” (Matt. 6:33)

8. Remember the Martyrs, who because of their obedience were (and are) destitute, imprisoned, flogged, tortured, disfigured, beheaded, and sawn in two. Is having children such a sacrifice for doing the right thing?

***

17. Sincere questions for Bishops and Christian leaders.

I am only a layman. I have chosen to submit to the leadership of the Orthodox Church—for me, the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). I love and respect my leadership, and I believe they have the best of intentions. But I am troubled by our treatment of the issue of contraception.

Honestly, I cannot say with 100 percent certainty that I believe the current allowances for contraception are wrong. I am certainly troubled by the changing (declining?) position in the past half a century. And I am open to being persuaded that all contraception should be disallowed, especially in light of the science on the pill as an abortifacient and the consistent witness of the Fathers against wasting seed and protecting the “life-giving process.” But I’m not there yet.

I have a young colleague in my church, age 24, who has committed to having as many children as God gives him and his wife. They just conceived their third. He comes from a family of eleven children. He believes all contraception is wrong. One of his arguments is that phrases like “egoistic reasons” simply serve as an excuse and justification for birth control to be practiced wholesale in the church.

He’s right. That does appear to be happening. But that, in itself, is not a reason to declare something sinful.

Instead, I will appeal to my Christian leaders from the heart, not the letter:

  • Are we truly addressing this issue with all concern and alarm, appropriate to the crisis in our culture?

  • Why do we not identify the pill as a method that causes abortion? Have you seen studies that show differently? Have you pushed hard enough on this question?

  • Do you see in our parishes a culture of “increase and multiply,” or has modern convenience and personal fulfillment and self-actualization replaced the priority of growing large families?

  • Are our priests instructing young couples to conceive children? Or are degrees and career paths “non-egoistic”?

  • If the allowance for contraception in extenuating circumstances has been twisted to permit birth control at the whim of the individual, how can this be turned around?

Or … is it possible that the more difficult and “hardcore” position of the Church Fathers is the better position, and always has been?

 

 

Joachim and Anna tried for 50 years to conceive. They only had one child—Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.

  

CITATIONS:

** Special thanks to Levi Crawford, research assistant for this project.

2. Is the West really dying?

1. Patrick Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower (St. Martin’s Press), 2011, 164.

2. www.populationpyramid.net; Population stats and birth rates also taken throughout this article from World Statistics Pocketbook 2016 edition, United Nations, New York, 2016. 

3. “The Amazing, surprising, Africa-driven demographic future of the earth, in 9 charts,” Max Fisher, Washington Post, July 16, 2013.

4. Patrick Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower, 164, 176.

5. Edward Bennett Glick, “Who will be at the top on top at the end of the century?” American Thinker, Dec. 27, 2010.

6. “Can Policies boost Birth Rates? Policy Brief, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Nov. 2007, cited in Patrick Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower, 166-167.

7. Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower, 172.

8. “Russia Demographics Are Now Reasonably Healthy. Birth Rate the Highest in Europe,” Russia Insider, March 22, 2016; “Russia May Have Turned the Corner in Demographic Crisis,” Breitbart, June 14, 2017; Russia’s rising birth rate gives new life to health care providers,” CNBC, March 20, 2017; “‘We’re OUTBREEDING you!’ Putin taunts West as he unveils drive to boost Russian birth rate.” London Express, Dec. 1, 2016.

9. The highest abortion rate in the U.S. was 29 per 1000 women in 1980. Contraception has prevented many children for every woman. see http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/17/509734620/u-s-abortion-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade


5. The Early Church knew all about oral contraceptives and condoms.

1. John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by Catholic Theologians and the Canonists (Harvard, 1968), 9-14.

2. John M.Riddle, Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance); Megan L. Evans, A Desire to Control: Contraception throughout the ages. (The George Washington University School, Volume 1, Issue 1) E08.

3. Noonan, Contraception, 15.

4. Noonan, Contraception, 23.


6. The Early Church clearly distinguished between Contraception and Abortion.

1. Tikhon Alexander Pino, Contraception and the Orthodox Church: Contemporary Theology and the Source of Tradition, OrthoChristian.com. He cites for St. John the Faster: Rudder, ed., Hieromonk Agapios and Monk Nikodimos (Athens, 1886), 572.

2. Penitential (PG 88:1924A): quoted. by Noonan, Contraception:, 168n.

 

7. The Early Church did not believe each sperm contained a “tiny baby.”

1. Noonan, Contraception, 89.

2. Noonan, Contraception, 91.

3. Fr. Joseph Gleason, Sacred Seed, Sacred Chamber, May 18, 2015, theOrthodoxLife.wordpress.com.

 

10. Luther and Calvin say Onan was killed for spilling seed.

1. Luther’s Works, Vol. 5, p. 325.

2. Martin Luther, Commentary on Genesis, p. 250-251.

3. Luther’s Works, Vol. 7, p. 20-21.

4. This translation of Calvin’s comments from Charles Provan, The Bible and Birth Control (Monongahela, PA, Zimmer Printing, 1989), p, 20. For Provan’s search to find Calvin’s comments on Onan, see the online pdf of his book: http://www.mayblossom.org/Publications/Bible%20and%20Birth%20Control%20PDF.PDF

5. John Wesley, Commentary on Genesis 38.

 

11. Why do the Church Fathers call contraception “murder”?

1. Noonan, Contraception, p. 165.

2. Christos Jonathan Seth Hayward, Morality of Contraception: An Orthodox Opinion: A commentary. Jan  6, 2016.  www.cjshayward.com

3. Noonan, Contraception, p. 105-106.


12. Birth control pills cause abortions. The science is settled.

1. The Physician’s Desk Reference, 1995, 1775.

2. Dr. J. Richard Crout, FDA Consumer, HEW publication number 76- 3024, reprinted from May, 1976.

3. Handbook of Obstetrics & Gynecology, (6th edition, 1977), 689-690.

4. Facts About Oral Contraceptives, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1984

5. Dr. Walter Larimore and Randy Alcorn, Using the Birth Control Pill Is 205 Ethically Unacceptable, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2000), 179- 191.

6. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation, A Guide to Methods of Contraception, (Raritan, NJ: Ortho, 1979), 8.

7. The Physician’s Desk Reference, 1995, 2461.

8. The Physician’s Desk Reference, 1995, 2743.

9. Pharmacists for Life, Oral Contraceptives and IUDs: Birth Control or Abortifacients?, November 1989, 1.

10. Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1994, 7th edition) 626.

11. Frank Sussman, representing Missouri Abortion Clinics, New York Times, National Edition, April 27, 1989, 15 & B13.

12. Ruth Colker, The Dallas Morning News, February 6, 1992, 23A.

13. Dr. Alan Guttmacher, Prevention of Conception Through Contraception and Sterilization, Gynecology and Obstetrics, Vol.1, C. H. Davis, ed. (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1966), 8.

14. J. C. Espinoza, M.D., Birth Control: Why Are They Lying to Women?, 28.

15. Randy Alcorn, Does the birth control pill cause abortions? (Eternal Perspective Ministries, Sandy, OR: 1997, revised 11th edition 2011), 104-5.

16. Randy Alcorn, Does the birth control pill cause abortions? (Eternal Perspective Ministries, Sandy, OR: 1997, revised 11th edition 2011), 58-60.

17. Eugene F. Diamond, Word Wars: Games People Play about the Beginning of Life, Physician, November/December 1992, 14-15. For more on this also see DA Grimes, RJ Cook, Mifepristone (RU-486)—an abortifacient to prevent abortion? New England Journal of Medicine, 1992;327:1088-9 and DA Grimes, Emergency contraception—expanding opportunities for primary prevention, New England Journal of Medicine,” 1997;337:1078-9.

18. Wm Colliton, Jr., Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient or Contraceptive? LinacreQuarterly, November, 1999, 35.

19. Randy Alcorn, Does the birth control pill cause abortions?, 35.

20. Randy Alcorn, Does the birth control pill cause abortions?, 107.

 

13. After 2000 years, the Orthodox Church now allows for contraception.

1. Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church. (London: Penguin, 1963, rev. 1964, 1967, 1969, 1980, 1983, 1993).

2. Ware, The Orthodox Church (1984), 302; Ibid. (1993), 296.

3. John Meyendorff, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: Crestwood, NY, 2000) p. 61, 62. online at https://stnoufer.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/marriage-from-an-orthodox-perspective-john-meyendorff.pdf

4. OCA Synodal Affirmations on Marriage and Sexuality and The Procreation of Children: https://oca.org/the-hub/two-become-one/session-6-like-olive-shoots-around-your-table-the-blessing-of-children

5. Greek Archdiocese Yearbook—1957, p. 50-51.

6. Russian Orthodox Church, The Basis of the Social Contract, XII.3. https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/

 

14. Hope for the future of Christendom—Ethiopia

1.www.populationpyramid.netWorld Statistics Pocketbook 2016 edition, United Nations, New York, 2016.

 

2. Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey, Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, July 2014, 5.2.1,  p. 34.

3. “Ethiopians Seeking Birth Control: Caught Between Church And State,” National Public Radio, Dec.30,2014. 

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/12/30/301425396/ethiopians-seeking-birth-control-caught-between-church-and-state

 

15. Why is Satan so intent to stop creation of more people?

1. John Calvin, Commentary on Ezekiel 10.

2. James B. Jordan, Revelation in Detail—204 lectures, #37: “The black and green horse rider,” Wordmp3.com

Why is Mary so important? (Five points)

Icons and Mary: that’s the phrase—the two main objections, constantly named by those inquiring into the Orthodox Church.

I covered icons in my previous article. Today, I will discuss Mary, hereafter referred to generally as Theotokos (“Mother of God”), the Church’s preferred way to address her.

Here are five points to help those on the cusp to get past the objections with the Theotokos.

1. “One Mediator between God and man” is retained in Orthodoxy.

Regarding the Theotokos, I will spend the majority of this article painting a positive picture, whetting the imagination, since in certain cases honey is more effective than its opposite. But first I will address the main reason Protestants bristle at the mention of the Theotokos (I did!)—they are concerned that she is stealing part of the role that is exclusively reserved for Christ, who is the “one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ” (I Tim 2:5). Quick points:

One Mediator

  • If by mediator, you mean someone to be worshipped, the Orthodox Church does not believe the Theotokos should be worshipped. That is reserved for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. She is to be venerated (adored, honored). In our services the Trinity is worshipped and “glorified.” That word is not used for the Theotokos, who is venerated and “magnified.” (See my previous article on icons for discussion on how in an Asian-Eastern culture—and Orthodoxy is eastern—even businessmen today bow down to show respect, not worship.)

  • The Theotokos, while not the theology proper one mediator between God and man, is given so much appreciation in the Church because she played such a key role in providing human nature for the man who became THE mediator. (Admittedly, Mariolatry does exist in certain places in Catholicism, but not officially.)

  • Don’t freak out about mediation. Did someone lead you to Christ? Did your grandmother pray for you to find the Lord? Did a beloved pastor play a crucial role in your relationship with Christ? Did a Gideon plant a bible for you? All of these played a mediating role. And, of course, they did not take away from the theological fact that Christ is our one mediator between God and man.

2. The Orthodox world better reflects a population over 50 percent female.

Now the positive.

A woman is center stage! C’mon now. Think about it. Our western culture is screaming for more of the feminine. Clearly, it is an over-reaction, but why? I would venture to say because our form of Christianity is bereft of feminine representation. The way to do this is not female clergy. (The Orthodox church won’t even allow women behind the altar, so don’t think the Church’s solution is modernism.) The solution is venerating and adoring women, the same way we venerate and adore our mothers and wives and sisters and daughters.

In every Orthodox Church in the world, you will find an icon of Christ—Jesus, the man, to the right—and an icon of Jesus, the child, to the left, held by his Mother. There she is, a woman, being acknowledged and appreciated at all times, in every church.

Protestants, in their overreaction, have never found a way to publicly acknowledge women at a high volume. Instead they venerate Paul, Peter, Moses, David, John, the other John with Calvin behind his name, Luther, Wesley, and maybe Billy.

Women? Protestants can’t agree. Oh, I’ve heard a couple mentions of Susanna Wesley or maybe Katie Luther, or Mother Theresa. (Strike that, she’s Catholic.) Since there is no consensus, there’s simply not much mention of women.

And so, our current culture is starved for the feminine. Bookstores are filled with high sellers about goddess worship and other occult notions, which haven’t forgotten that women are half of the human race.

In Orthodoxy, not only is there one woman who is showcased up front, icons of female saints will be seen at a decent ratio along the walls with male saints. These saints rank higher than priests and bishops. They are the top of the totem pole. In heaven (and on our Orthodox earth), females are legitimately represented. So when women, and moderns in general, walk into an Orthodox Church, they look around and see the world in a common sense way: men AND women. This obviously makes an important subconscious impact, but all the while Christ only is worshipped, and biblical principles for male and female roles are not compromised.

Wouldn’t you want this for YOUR church?

3. The right balance: we constantly worship the Trinity and we acknowledge, at times, the Theotokos.

When I first started attending the Orthodox Church, I was indeed jolted by the several mentions of the Theotokos and the words honoring her. I was concerned. But over time, I figured something out. She was honored or “magnified” five or six times. However, about 100 times during the service, I heard the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being “glorified,” or worshipped. There is no mistake about who it is that we specifically worship in the Orthodox Church. But neither are we unwitting misogynists who ignore their mother and the unwed virgin. (If that last word triggered you, take note that Luther and Wesley were ardent defenders of the perpetual virginity of Mary, and Calvin refused to say anything against that doctrine. See here.)


4. We love royalty, because it reflects the cosmos.

Luther also referred to Mary as the “Queen of Heaven” his entire life. Where did he come up with such language? Here are two passages that certainly contributed:

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever . . . at your right hand stands the Queen” (Psalm 45).

"And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. . . . She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations” (Revelation 12).

Like Luther, we need to have the ability, the vision, the imagination to see the amazing beauty of the Theotokos. She is not just a woman who did the pedestrian duty of having a child so Jesus could enter the world.

Try to capture the view of the angels. For eons, they would not even cast a glance at the Godhead. The biblical throne room depictions of the Holy Trinity show Cherubim and Seraphim covering their eyes (and feet) and keeping their distance as they shout “Holy! Holy! Holy! The term “holy” is many-layered and communicates complete otherness, a vast partition, so fearful and wonderful that the angels dare not even look.

Then something happened. This fearful and dreadful, awesome and holy God forms himself in the womb of a human being. The Divine One whom the greatest of angels dared not approach, or even look at, binds himself in a strange oneness with a lowly earthling. They share deep, intimate moments, which include bodily fluids, during the birth. She nurses the infant. Caresses and embraces are constant. What closeness!

This is why the Orthodox Church includes this verse in all of its services: “More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim—without corruption Thou gavest birth to God the Word. True Theotokos, we magnify Thee!”

5. The fulfillment of the Ark

She is also the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant. While this may be your first time to hear that, every person in Ethiopia is familiar with it. All the Orthodox Christians there believe the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia, and an Ark replica is used for every church altar. But they constantly emphasize that the true Ark is the Theotokos. St. Athanasius, the great defender of the Trinity at Nicea, proclaimed Mary as the Ark. “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. . . You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” (St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373) in MCF, 206, cited in Brian Forrest Roberts, Dear Brother (Lulu: 2006), p. 213.)

All Orthodox altars include the three items inside the Ark: the Law tablets (the Gospel book), the manna (the eucharist), and Aaron’s budding staff (a wooden cross, decorated seasonally with flowers). While some central icons behind the altar depict the resurrection, others depict the Theotokos and the child Jesus, because the child messiah, even if in the womb, is placed above the Ark altar in the precise position—on the wings of the cherubim just above the Ark, where the Holy and fearful God rested.

This is not something to cringe (my first reaction to the Theotokos). This is something to celebrate in wonder.

So you see, Mary is not just another person. She is the gateway for the Second Person of the Trinity to enter the world and flip the positions of heaven and earth. She is the initiator of the great paradigm shift, the first human after Christ to begin the replacement of the angels. This is no small thing, and it is worthy of veneration.

Luther said it best in his last sermon: "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the serpent's head. Hear us. For your son denies you nothing” (Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129).

Dean W. Arnold is an author and documentarian. He writes in binges.








"Bowing down to icons." I can explain this puzzle. (Five points)

Icons and Mary. Icons and Mary.

One hears these two objections like clockwork when answering questions about Orthodox Christianity.

I feel your pain. Regarding icons, my first experience with Orthodoxy was a very Protestant feel of sitting in folding chairs circling a living room during weekly Q & A sessions. About the fourth week in, the priest suggested we go to the icon of Christ in the corner of the room and venerate it.

What? Do what? What is this thing? Why are we venerating it? How do we do it? What does it mean?

I had way more questions than answers, but by that point I did have some trust and confidence in the people I was dealing with. So as the line was dwindling and my turn came up, I sort of nodded at Jesus as I walked by. Over time, after this toe dip in the water, I became more comfortable with the ritual.

1. Are you an unwitting gnostic heretic?

Why the aversion? Part of it is legit: there is a concern that this practice is a violation of the second of the Ten Commandments to not make an image of God. (More on that coming up.)

But another reason may be subconscious, stemming from the heretical air we breathe in this modern, tradition-phobic culture. Gnosticism has overtaken us, the deep-seated belief that somehow the body and the created matter of his world are evil, or at least quite lesser, and the real deal is the soul and spirit. This is a heresy that denies the Incarnation of Christ, who has re-affirmed what God proclaimed in Genesis 1, that the creation is good. He later intertwined it with the highest of all spirits, the Holy Spirit himself. There is no heirarchy between soul and body.

So when we stare at an icon of Christ, we are looking at created matter—not just dreaming something up in our heads—and it jolts our faulty sense that Christ of the highest heavens should not be associated with the lesser physical world. But the great revelation of history is the establishment of that very thing: he has absolutely associated himself with created matter by taking on a human body. Gnosticism is destroyed.


2. The image of Christ himself allows us to make images of Christ.

Regarding the second commandment, a major shift in religious thinking took place when the Father blessed the idea of God being depicted as an image—the face and body of his son, Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity. That’s an image, not an amorphous cloud or an unseen something above the Ark of the Covenant.

The Orthodox Church teaches that it is proper to create images of Christ (icons) because God himself did so in the Incarnation. The early church did so, and we can see icons of Christ today in the catacombs. Church Fathers go so far as to say that denying icons leads to denying the Incarnation itself.

Christ as the Good Shepherd painted in the Catacombs of St. Callixtus, 3rd century.

Okay. So images of God are fine. In fact, I never really struggled with icons of Christ before I was Orthodox. Neither did I struggle when I saw people “bowing down” to these icons in an Orthodox service. I understood the Orthodox teaching that the image is a “window to heaven,” something that helps us envision the true Christ, not the icon. It is Christ himself that we are bowing down to.

But that’s not the hard part. The really difficult issue is when you watch Orthodox Christians venerate (“bow down to”) icons that are not of Christ, to saints like Mary, John the Baptist, Nicholas, John Chrysostom, etc. Wait a minute! They aren’t God!

3. In Eastern cultures, we bow down to each other like shaking hands.

So let me explain: Eastern Orthodoxy derives from an Eastern culture, and like Asian and Oriental communities, they practice bowing to each like we practice the handshake (a germ-friendly practice probably worth looking into for the pandemic people, lol.) This was likely practiced by Paul when he said to greet one another with a holy kiss. You bowed to your friend and kissed their cheek, avoiding germy handshakes and engaging in direct face-on-face activity lasting a nanosecond rather than nearly a minute. Certainly, in modern Asian cultures, you will see businessmen bowing to each other. Are they worshipping each other? No. They are paying respect.

Neither are Orthodox Christians worshipping saints. They are paying respect to them in the Eastern style.

I know this is a difficult take, so let me give an example from another angle. Do you have a problem with a man getting down on one knee in front of his lady and proposing marriage? Is he worshipping her? Obviously not. He is offering the ultimate respect and honor. Orthodoxy is a culture of respect, and in the Eastern fashion we pay respect and honor to Christ and his saints. Theologically, the Church is quite clear in saying we only worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and we venerate, or honor, Mary and the saints.

4. Why must it look like we are worshipping idols?

Before I get to Mary (a subsequent article), I will share one other leg to my journey with icons and Orthodoxy. In time, it became clear to me that we were venerating, not worshipping. But it sure as heck LOOKS like we are worshipping icons. I had to take this up with the Lord. “You want us to bring people into the Church, but here we have this very visible practice that just looks a lot like something other than what it is. Why are you doing this to us?”

My answer is that this is not unlike God at all. He seems to wrap many things up in a cryptic fashion. He told parables because he specifically didn’t want some people to understand them. Jesus told the gentile woman who wanted her daughter healed that the dogs shouldn’t get the children’s food. What? He was testing her to see if she would push through the challenge, and she did. As biblical commentator James Jordan says, “We grow by being given puzzles."

And so with Orthodox Christianity, if you push, if you truly seek and ask the questions, you will learn the truth about icons and Mary. But for those whose hearts are not really interested, they will get filtered out early in the process. It saves both sides a lot of time and energy.

5. So many positives: color, persons affirmed, a culture of respect.

Once you’ve worked through the icon concerns, consider the positives. Christianity involves pictures and color. Lots of it! This is kind of basic. Kids love pictures (and they thrive around icons). So do adults. What do we think of cultures without museums (like in Islam?). We consider it dismal.

More positives. We don’t have icons, generally, of animals or nature. They are reserved for persons. And our society has a desperate need to honor persons. Perhaps we could have won the pro-life battle at a more primal level had we kept the historic tradition of the Church.

A final positive. Orthodoxy retains a culture of respect. We’ve clearly lost that, and that disrespect is leading toward a headlong rush into societal collapse. But in the historic Orthodox Christian Church, we continue to respect our priest father, bishop father, monastic fathers, forefathers, the fathers of Christ, the early Church fathers, and our actual fathers.

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.” (Exodus 20:12)

Regarding honoring your mother (Mary), see my next article.

Dean W. Arnold is an author and documentarian. He writes in binges.

When the U.N. used “vaccinations” to secretly sterilize 3 million Kenyan Women

Kenya’s bishops and government health ministry “are locked in a heated battle over the safety of a tetanus vaccine that’s being administered to women in the country,” reported the Washington Post on November 14, 2014. The United Nations insisted that its vaccines are safe, but “the country’s Catholic leaders say they have proof that the doses given to Kenyan women since March are ‘laced’ with a fertility inhibiting hormone.” 1

Screen Shot 2021-03-26 at 5.15.38 PM.png

Nearly 25 percent of Kenya is Catholic. The Catholic church operates 52 percent of the health care facilities in the nation including 54 hospitals, 83 health centers, and 17 medical and nursing schools. The vaccine scandal emerged when Kenyans raised their concerns regarding who the vaccine was targeting and the unusual dosage. Why were only women age 15 to 49 receiving a vaccination for tetanus when boys and men are more likely to get lockjaw from a rusty nail? Why did the vaccine require three large doses over a few months when normal tetanus vaccinations require one booster for a ten-year period?

The Church called on their people to boycott the vaccine until the matter could be resolved. The bishops’ medical advisors were primarily the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association. Their spokesman, Dr. Muhame Ngare, of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi, pulled no punches in describing the problem to the international media. “We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the hCG antigen. They were all laced with HCG.” The World Health Organization (WHO), overseeing the vaccination effort, denied all the accusations.

Releasing a bulletin on behalf of the doctors association, Dr. Ngare, an obstetrician and gynecologist with an MBA as well, pulled no punches. “This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine.”  2

The Washington Post printed the denials of the UN organizations: “WHO and UNICEF said the ‘grave allegations’ were ‘not backed by evidence.’ The Kenyan government has also denied that the vaccination program is a secret mass sterilization effort.” 

“Both the bishops and health officials agree that if present, the hormone has no business being in the vaccine doses,” the Post continued. “Several Western Catholic groups, along with organizations identifying as ‘pro-life,’ have waded into the matter, as has online debunking site Snopes, which rated the claim ‘false.’”

Snopes acted as an arbitrator of sorts between the two sides that were forming, the Catholics and the United Nations. Snopes calls itself “The definitive fact-checking and reference source” and clients have included Facebook and ABC. The effort was started by David and Barbara Mikkelson and is now run out of the Mikkelson home in Tacoma, Washington. Snopes positions itself as unbiased, impervious to money or other temptations, neither for or against religion or the secularism of the UN. They are simply about the facts. 

In their investigation, Snopes squared off against Dr. Ngare, a Catholic father of three and one of eleven children from a Presbyterian pastor. He vaccinates his kids. “The Catholic church has been here in Kenya providing health care and vaccinating for 100 years,” he said.” Ngare chose a medical career at age ten after his dog Tommy had a stomach wound and had to be put down by gunshot. The authorities only shot him in the arm. “He ran back to us,” Ngare relates, noting that he could see the dog in the yard but was not allowed to go outside to help him. “I wanted to be a veterinary doctor so a dog wouldn’t die like that again.” 3 

Dr. Wahome Ngare

Dr. Wahome Ngare

Snopes began their debunking by addressing the accusations of only childbearing women being targeted. “Neonatal tetanus resulted in the deaths of 550 Kenyan babies in 2013” and, according to UNICEF, “neonatal tetanus represents a very high proportion of the total tetanus disease.” Snopes explained that the women are targeted to prevent babies from being born with tetanus.

Ngare had other questions. “Usually we give a series of three shots over two to three years. We give it to anyone who comes in the clinic with an open wound—men, women or children. If this is intended to inoculate children in the womb, why give it to girls starting at 15 years? You cannot get married until you are 18.” 

Snopes calls this “a good illustration of fallacious thinking.” Since five shots are required, starting three years before a girl is married “makes more sense than exposing women who are married but not yet immunized to losing children to tetanus.” 

David Mikkelson and Snopes then addressed Ngare’s original accusation, that the vaccine was a contraceptive: “Dr. Collins Tabu, the head of immunization at Kenya’s Health Ministry, refuted the claim and said women immunized under the program in recent years subsequently conceived, prompting Ngare to respond with: ‘Either we are lying or the government is lying.’”  4

Ngare can perhaps be forgiven for not completely trusting the government or the World Health Organization that was funding the government operation. The WHO came under investigation from both the UK and the European Union for falsely predicting a swine flu epidemic in 2009, which led to various nations buying and stockpiling $7 billion worth of swine flu vaccines. In an article entitled “Report condemns Swine Flu Experts’ ties to Big Pharma,” The Guardian explains that the three scientists advising the World Health Organization were on the payroll of the Big Pharma companies selling the vaccines. The corruption accusations were initially reported in the British Medical Journal. Editor Fiona Godlee’s comments were printed in the Washington Post: “For WHO, it’s credibility has been badly damaged.”  5

Dr. Ngare then referenced an early incidence of the HCG hormone used in a vaccine. “. . . the last time this vaccination with five injections was used was in Mexico in 1993 and Nicaragua and the Philipines in 1994,” he said. “It didn’t cause miscarriages till three years later,” noting that a recent conception by a Kenyan girl was a meaningless counterclaim if the effect can take three years.

Ngare said that WHO and the United Nations attempted to bring the same anti-fertility vaccine to Kenya in the 1990s. “We alerted the government and it stopped the vaccination. But this time they haven’t done so.” 6 

Snopes dismisses the 1993 incidents in Mexico, Philippines, and Nicaragua as “false rumors.” The reason given is that WHO denied it. “These rumors, apparently initiated by so-called ‘pro-life’ groups, are completely untrue,” concluded Snopes. 

Purchase books by Dean W. Arnold at Amazon

Purchase books by Dean W. Arnold at Amazon

The definitive story of the saga in the Philippines and South America was provided by J. A. Miller in Human Life International Reports. “During the early 1990s, the World Health Organization has been overseeing massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in . . . Nicaragua, Mexico, and the Phillipines,” he writes in 1995. HLI has 60 world affiliates, and one day received a report from their Mexican affiliate workers who observed some highly suspicious procedures. Why women and no men? Why multiple booster shots? HLI “obtained several vials of the vaccine and had them analyzed by chemists,” says Miller. “Some of the vials were found to contain human chorionic gonodotrophin (HCG).” 

HCG is produced by an expecting woman which allows her to provide nutrients to a fertilized egg when the tiny baby attaches to the uterine lining. A positive result of pregnancy is determined when a pregnancy test detects HCG. But when a woman is injected with HCG mixed with the tetanus vaccine toxins, the woman’s body also identifies HCG as toxic and does not secrete it. So future fertilized eggs do not get the nutrients they need and the new life dies. Thus, her pregnancies are terminated immediately. 

Miller says Human Life International then warned its worldwide affiliates of the issue. “Soon additional reports of vaccines laced with HCG hormones began to drift in from the Philippines, where more than 3.4 million women were recently vaccinated. Similar reports came from Nicaragua.”  7

It’s all in the details. Did the vaccine actually have HCG? Snopes provides some reasons besides UN denials to argue against it. Citing the organization Reproductive Health Matters (changed recently to “Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters” to highlight their “gender diversity” efforts), they allege Catholic workers discovered the presence of HCG using pregnancy kits, which do not work for testing a vaccine. The test requires laboratory technology. When six labs tested the vaccine “the results clearly showed that the vaccines did not contain HCG.”  8

Miller and HLI tell a different story: “Confronted with the results of laboratory tests which detected its presence in three of the four vials of tetanus toxoid examined, the World Health Organization and the Department of Health scoffed at the evidence coming from ‘right-to-life and Catholic’ sources. Four new vials of the tetanus vaccine were submitted by DOH to St. Luke’s (Lutheran) Medical Center in Manila—and all four vials tested positive for HCG.” 

Snopes again quotes Reproductive Health Matters: “The low levels of HCG like activity seen in some places were the result of false positive reactions.” According to UNICEF, any trace of HCG would be “an extremely rare contamination.” 

Miller said the argument changed from outright denial to “insignificant” amounts of HCG and “false positives,” which means contamination derived from the manufacturing process. Another 30 women were tested in the Philippines after being vaccinated and “twenty-six tested positive for high levels of anti-HCG,” he wrote. “The WHO and the DOH had no answers.”  9

Regarding Dr. Ngare’s charges of sterilization attempts in those countries as well as Kenya more recently, Snopes called it “conspiracy theory.” But perhaps the dog-loving Ngare can be forgiven for entertaining conspiracy theories when only a year before the tetanus scandal in Kenya, it was revealed that 130,000 Ethiopians living in Israel were subjected to similar forced contraceptive practices. 

Forbes magazine discussed the global headlines that said “a report revealing African women immigrating to Israel were subjected to mandatory contraceptive injections, effectively amounting to forced (if temporary) sterilization . . .” The Israeli Ethiopian immigrant population has historically been poor, but healthy and growing, although the birthrate decreased 20 percent in the past decade. “Advocacy groups now claim this decline is the result of a birth control program forced upon Ethiopian immigrant women.” 

“Israel has acknowledged the issue (without admitting any wrongdoing),” said Forbes, “and has vowed institutional changes in healthcare for immigrants.” The prestigious financial magazine adds: “There is no excuse for depriving women sovereignty over their own reproductive choices.” Forbes calls the development “shocking.” While saying it is not comparable in scale to Jews’ past sufferings, Forbes also says: “Israel’s implicit intent to limit ‘burdensome’ (read: undesirable) portions of the population recalls the dark eugenics experiments of World War II.” 10

But what about the actual science in Kenya? Do the vaccines contain HCG? Have the tests been done? What does Snopes, dedicated to just the facts and not bias, or perspective or worldview or opinion, tell us about the laboratories and the testing? 

Before wading into that controversy, let us mention here that Dr. Ngare’s call for a boycott extended beyond tetanus. He and the bishops warned against the polio vaccine, the holy grail of all vaccinations. 

“Africa will mark one year without polio on Tuesday,” reported NPR. “But last week . . . [Kenya’s] Catholic bishops declared a boycott of the World Health Organization’s [polio] vaccination campaign, saying they needed to ‘test’ whether ingredients contain a derivative of estrogen. Dr. Wahome Ngare of the Kenyan Doctor’s Catholic Doctor’s Association alleged that the presence of the female hormone could sterilize children.”

Oddly, NPR made no mention of the blazing tetanus vaccine controversy occurring around the same time, a campaign losing steam due to the Catholic boycott. Dr. Ngare’s suspicion was raised “by WHO’s decision to blanket Kenya with polio vaccines, well over and above routine injections,” reported NPR. “The WHO says there’s no harm in giving extra vaccines to children who are already vaccinated.” 

In fairness, NPR represents Ngare as pro-vaccine in general: “He administers vaccines to his patients in his clinic. His children are vaccinated. ‘Regular immunizations are safe and they must continue,’ he says. ‘You must immunize your child.’”

“He raises the specter of eugenics—sterilizing segments of human populations,” writes NPR’s reporter, Gregory Warner. “He put forth other objections as well: ‘There are all sorts of stories out there,’ he told me. ‘Vaccines can cause autism. Vaccines have been used for spread of HIV. There are some cancer-causing viruses that you’d find in vaccines. So there are a lot of stories. Some of them we don’t know whether they’re true or not.’” 

Says the reporter Warner: “I pointed out to him that research has shown that claims of vaccines being linked to autism and HIV and cancer are in fact not true. His response: ‘We could debate this forever.’”  11

Once again, Ngare is being positioned, rightly or wrongly, as a “conspiracy theorist.” And now he and the bishops are calling off vaccinations of polio, considered by far the most effective of all vaccines, created by the most famous of all vaccination doctors, Jonas Salk. Take your choice, the famous inventor who made the cover of Time Magazine—the “Father of Vaccines,” or an unknown whistleblower in Africa? Dr. Ngare can perhaps be forgiven for his conspiracies regarding the polio vaccine if we consider Jonas Salk’s own words. Cultural critic Jay Dyer’s review of a book by Salk revealed that the Father of Vaccines suggests the possibility of injecting harmful viruses into humans, specifically reproductive organs. Salk writes: “’Mutations’ as here defined, would also be produced by the introduction, either naturally or experimentally, of a virus into a sperm or egg cell, the genetic information of which would then be incorporated in either the DNA or the RNA and transmitted. Such new information might be advantageous or disadvantageous.” 12 

Salk writes this in pages 43 of his book with the very eugenic sounding title: The Survival of the Wisest. Who gets to receive Salk’s negative viruses? He doesn’t say. He does note in the same short book that “relativistic” thinking is better than “anti-evolutionary” value judgments—so he may not care for the Catholics. “Absolutists are extremists who see life exclusively from their own narrow, rigid viewpoint” and “may be destroyed by their own inability to participate in the evolutionary process.” If you “resist evolution” it leads to “nonsurvival and nonexistence.” 

“When we speak of the survival of the wisest,” he concludes, “by wisest we mean those who comprehend the survival-evolutionary process, as well as the being becoming process, and who make choices such as enhance the possibility of existence rather than nonexistence, recognizing evolution as an essential and inexorable continuum of growth and development.”  13

He may have been a great scientist, I don’t know. But he was an awful writer—albeit a frightening one. His book is another difficult one to find. I traveled a few hours to see one firsthand.

Regarding the actual testing of the tetanus vaccine in Kenya, the process started with the bishops, the doctors association, and Dr. Ngare sending six samples for testing in South Africa. Their joint statement stated that the vaccine is “laced with the Beta-HCG hormone.” 

The largest catholic doctors organization in the world, Matercare, based in Canada, backed Ngare and the bishops, calling the vaccination program “evil,” according to Matercare’s Harvard educated founder Dr. Robert Walley. The Washington Post printed this important endorsement of Ngare. 14  

Snopes cited UNICEF for their refutation, saying the analyzers used were for blood and urine, not for a vaccine. But Ngare maintained that a retest was difficult, as the first test required surreptitiously obtaining samples by devout Catholics at the hospital. He said this vaccine is lacking “the usual fanfare of government publicity” and instead “only a few operatives from the government are allowed to give it out. They come with a police escort.” 

To resolve the mistrust, both the Catholic doctors and the government’s health department agreed to do a second test by a joint committee of Catholic, government, and independent medical experts. But the results were again debated. Dr. Stephen Karanja, an official with Ngare for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, submitted to the committee the new findings of HCG in the vaccine, calling it “nothing short of a scheme to forcefully render women incapable of bearing children.” Conversely, the Health Ministry submitted its test results to the committee, showing no trace of HCG. 15

A leader of the committee lamented, “We are at loss about who to believe since both sides have tabled conflicting results.” However, the Matercare founder felt like he had seen enough evidence to switch sides. “The bishops did the responsible thing in raising concerns,” Dr. Walley said. “But I have checked with experts in Australia and America and confirmed the information the Catholic doctors put out was not right.” 

For Kenya’s new joint committee, six laboratories ran results. One lab, Lancet Kenya, run by Dr. Ahmed Kalebi, found no HCG. “I’ve checked results from the other 5 labs and these give very consistent findings to what we have,” he said, “except for 2 samples . . . at Pathcare.” So once again, the methods of the testing were questioned. Dr. Ngare said the second tests “raise suspicion that the vaccine is laced with HCG, more so the results of Pathcare that were way above the lab cut-off.” 16

Therefore, all parties called for a third round of testing. Meanwhile, the secretary general of the teacher’s union of Kenya called for a boycott of the tetanus vaccine. “A generation will come when we will not have children to teach,” he said. “We will, therefore, end up with no jobs.” 17 

The Washington Post reported that the Kenya Parliament itself moved to oversee the third test of the vaccine. The Post asked if “the bishops’ accusations will hold up to continued scrutiny?” But they also in the same breath alluded to the eugenics skeleton in America’s past. “Forced, involuntary sterilization—particularly targeting certain groups, such as the poor, the mentally ill or the HIV positive—has a long and shameful history, including in the United States.” 18

LifeSiteNews reported that the tests commissioned by the Kenyan Parliament—the third round of tests—brought results of 3 of 59 vials of vaccine samples containing the HCG hormone. “Local news media . . . reported this as if it resolved the controversial issue [but] the Kenyan Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a 19-point statement questioning the test claims,” and insisted no more vaccines be administered until they are proven safe. 

The formal statement, signed by the chairman of the conference, Cardinal John Njue, said none of the samples came from the early campaign, where HCG was first detected, thereby giving WHO an opportunity to change the later vaccine samples. They also contended that the third test was to involve equal amounts of samples from the government and the bishops. Of the bishops’ 9 samples, three contained HCG. When the government saw the results, they added 40 more vials to the samples and delayed the committee’s report one week to include the extra findings. 19 

Once again, the two groups were at an impasse. Then, Dr. Ngare and his colleague, Dr. Karanja, were both summoned to appear before the Preliminary Inquiry Committee of the Kenya Medical Practitioners, which determines licensure. Also, one of the labs that detected HCG in the third round of testing, Aqriq-Quest Ltd, was stripped of its accreditation. Business Daily Africa reported that a former employee, who requested anonymity, claimed that “the lab lacked capacity to carry out the tests it was handling for its clients.” Agriq-Quest, according to Snopes, claimed the government had withheld a large sum for their lab services due to their “refusal to doctor results in favor” of the Ministry of Health. Snopes said “no evidence has been offered to suggest that narrative was anything other than a desperate PR move by a business whose accreditation had been revoked.” 20

Health Impact News interviewed a spokesman for Agriq-Quest, which has a headquarters in the Netherlands as well as Kenya. Asked if their labs had the necessary equipment for testing HCG: “Yes, the method of choice was HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography). We have three HPLC machines and we developed and validated the method.” This same spokesman said 3 of 6 vials tested had the HCG hormone. “We reported our preliminary findings to the joint committee. The committee was disbanded before the final report was presented.” 

“Our license was not suspended. We continue to run the laboratory,” the Agriq-Quest spokesman added, saying the news about licensing had to do with “soil and wastewater” issues of a local concern, not the lab. “They suspended the accreditation which we know was due to other influence and we decided to we did not require it anymore and withdrew from it.” 

“We feel we were right in our analysis and that the vaccines were contaminated with beta HCG,” the spokesman continued. “No kind of intimidation will hide this and take this scientific fact away. What happened was a systematic scheme to destroy the credibility of the laboratory and cast doubt on the tests since they did not have the capacity to challenge the science and method used to analyze the vaccines.” Dr. Ngare agrees. “They only withdrew their local accreditation, which is of little consequence to the functionality of the laboratory. It was most likely a preemptive move to put doubt in the results just in case the results are ever published in a scientific paper as we have done.” 

Ngare believes the licensure hearing he and his colleague were summoned to appear before was a similar show trial. They were given “a long lecture on the importance of vaccines” but heard nothing further. “My feeling is that the sermons were used to create a certain impression among the public—that we were summoned by the board for disciplinary proceedings [but] we have never spoken thereafter. A very clever political trick, I must admit.” 21

In 2017, three years after the initial controversy, the former prime minister of Kenya, Raila Odinga said, “Today, we can confirm to the country that the Catholic Church was right.” The story was reported by Agence de Presse, (the wire service of France) which added: “According to Odinga, the government, for some mysterious reason, was hell bent on misleading the country, while intentionally sterilizing Kenyan girls and women.” 

Ngare assured the media that they will continue to test vaccinations “so that they will not poison our people in the future.” But Matercare’s Dr. Walley continues to believe the fears are groundless, saying his fellow Catholic doctors “got confused, I think, by the reports from Mexico and India about sterilization campaigns.” 22 

In fact, two years after the Kenya controversy, India’s Health Department cut all ties with the Gates Foundation regarding vaccinations. The Economic Times reported that officials in India grew alarmed over conflicts of interest problems with Big Pharma and Gates after conducting a study entitled: “Philanthropic Power and Development—Who shapes the agenda?” The study warned of “the growing influence of the large philanthropic foundations, especially the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” Only two years earlier, Bill and Melinda Gates had been given India’s third highest award. “We have always said foreign influence in our domestic policies must be avoided,” said a spokesman for a sovereignty advocacy group in India. 23

For Dr. Ngare and those concerned about vaccine tampering, various tests and presentations of “evidence” from the other side no longer have much staying power. “Why should anyone be surprised,” he said. “They did it in South America.” The Washington Post’s Nov. 14, 2014 article said the matter was “unresolved,” but did give some resolution by pointing to the “online debunking site Snopes, which rated the claim ‘false.’” 

Snopes, which updated its report in 2018, has this final word on the Agriq-Quest claims of “foul play” and the Kenya vaccine scandal: “. . . the claim of a government’s mandating doctored results to sell a secret sterilization program has not been ignored by conspiracy-minded websites . . .”  24

Snopes, of course, refers to itself not as conspiracy-minded or biased or with any malice towards traditionalists or progressives or any other worldview. They refer to their organization as “scholarly and reliable” and added Facebook as a client. However, two years after their negative assessment of the Catholic bishops and doctors, the Daily Mail released a rather embarrassing article with the long but interesting title: “Facebook ‘fact checker’ who will arbitrate on ‘fake news’ is accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes—and its staff includes an escort-porn star and ‘Vice Vixen domme.’”

Snopes founder David Mikkelson found himself on the receiving end of a divorce by cofounder Barbara Mikkelson. Her legal filings, according to the Mail, says he “embezzled $98,000 of company money and spent it on ‘himself and prostitutes.’” His new wife, Elyssa Young, a “long-time escort and porn star,” is on staff at Snopes. The Mail gives quite a few details of her escort web page. “While David Mikkelson has denied that Snopes takes any political position, his new wife has a background in politics,” reports the Mail. She ran for congress and bashed the Republican opponent, handing out “cards and condoms stamped with the slogan ‘Don’t get screwed again’” . . . But she received “a bad spot of media attention after Young misspelled her Republican opponent’s name on her campaign website.”

“One of the lead fact-checkers, Kim LaCapria, has also been a sex-and-fetish blogger who went by the pseudonym ‘Vice Vixen.’” the Daily Mail reported. “She described her blog as a lifestyle website ‘with a specific focus on naughtiness, sin, carnal pursuits, and general hedonism.’” She wrote on her blog that she “has posted on Snopes.com while smoking pot.” 

Regarding financial details of the divorce, “David wanted his salary raised from $240,000 to $360,000 – arguing that this would still put him below the ‘industry standards’ and that he should be paid up to $720,000 a year. . .  So bitter was the dispute, that they even fell out over the arbiter they had appointed to settle disputes, meaning that Facebook’s arbiter cannot even agree on its own arbiter.” 25

A writer for Forbes balked at Mikkelson’s refusal to comment on the Daily Mail article because of a pending lawsuit. “In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact-checker, the response was the equivalent of ‘it’s secret.’” 26

The two opponents in Kenya’s vaccination scandal have not been able to reconcile. “They are all my good friends on both sides,” said the Lancet Lab director. “Now they are [denouncing] each other.” 27

Robert Walley, the Harvard trained doctor and founder of Matercare, who has supported both sides at one time or another, ultimately struggled with the idea of United Nations organizations being involved in a conspiracy to hurt others. “The World Health Organization and UNICEF are intensely regulated organizations, mandated to improve the physical and social well-being of women and children throughout the world,” he said. “[They are] therefore unlikely to be involved in giving a contraceptive vaccine disguised as a tetanus vaccine. This would amount to a gross violation of human rights.” 

This is generally what the argument comes down to. It is almost impossible to believe that “nice” people would do such bad things. Could certain doctors in their benign white jackets perform such dark deeds? What about UN workers called to help the helpless? It doesn’t seem possible. What about the billionaire philanthropists whose friendly faces we see on a regular basis? To believe the HCG laced vaccine story is to open the door to believing other possibilities of sinister actions taken by people with a tremendous amount of respect and an enormous amount of power.

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat feels your pain. “It’s easy for us to look back and pass judgment on yesterday’s eugenicists. It’s harder to acknowledge what we have in common with them,” he writes, naming “a desire for mastery and control” and “a belief in our own fundamental goodness, no matter to what end our mastery is turned.”

“The American elite’s pre-World War II commitment to breeding out the ‘unfit’ — defined variously as racial minorities, low-I.Q. whites, [etc] — is a story that defies easy stereotypes about progress and enlightenment,” Douthat notes, “But these same eugenicists were often political and social liberals — advocates of social reform, partisans of science . . .” He quotes from the recent Yale Alumni Magazine attempting to come to terms with a well-known eugenicist alum: “They weren’t sinister characters out of some darkly lighted noir film about Nazi sympathizers,” the writer explains, “but environmentalists, peace activists, fitness buffs, healthy-living enthusiasts, inventors and family men.” 

The New York Times columnist continues: “From Teddy Roosevelt to the Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, fears about ‘race suicide’ and ‘human weeds’ were common among self-conscious progressives, who saw the quest for a better gene pool as of a piece with their broader dream of human advancement.” He provides a final foreboding comment: “. . . the elimination or pre-emption, through careful reproductive planning, of the weaker members of the human species — has become a more realistic possibility than it ever was in the 1920s and ’30s.” 28

Douthat encourages us not to look on the mere surface: science types, sustainability activists, heath advocates, wonderful family people—none of those should keep us from asking the difficult questions. We should examine the facts and the documentation and draw our own conclusions.

 

Endnotes

1 Abby Ohiheiser, Washington Post, “The tense standoff between Catholic bishops and the Kenyan government over tetanus vaccines,” Nov. 14, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/11/14/the-tense-standoff-between-catholic-bishops-and-the-kenyan-government-over-tetanus-vaccines  

2 Steve Weatherbe, “‘A mass sterilization exercise’: Kenyan doctors find anti-fertility agent in U.N. tetanus vaccine,” Life Site News, Nov. 6, 2014, https://web.archive.org/web/20080413151205/http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2003/jul2003p6_1370.html (Retrieved April 24, 2019). 

3 rated the claim false David Mikkelson, “Is Tetanus Vaccine Spiked with Sterilization Chemicals?” Snopes, Nov. 10, 2014 (Updated April 18, 2018), https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tetanus-vaccine-sterilization (April 24, 2019).

vaccinating for 100 years Steve Weatherbe, “‘A mass sterilization exercise.’” 

his dog Tommy Game Changer: Interview with Dr. Wahome Ngare, KTN News Kenya, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZybTGoHzMA (Retrieved April 24, 2019).

4 David Mikkelson, “Is Tetanus Vaccine Spiked with Sterilization Chemicals?” Snopes, Nov. 10, 2014.

Press Statement by the Catholic Health Commission of Kenya—Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops on the National Tetanus Vaccination Campaign scheduled for  13th-19th October 2014, Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops, Oct. 7, 2014, http://www.kccb.or.ke/home/news-2/press-statement-5/ (Retrieved April 24, 2019). 

Steve Weatherbe, “‘A mass sterilization exercise’.’”

5 Randeep Ramesh, “Report condemns swine flu experts’ ties to big pharma,” The Guardian, June 3, 2010, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/jun/04/swine-flu-experts-big-pharmaceutical (Retrieved April 24, 2019).

Rob Stein, “Reports accuse WHO of exaggerating H1N1 threat, possible ties to drug makers,” Washington Post, June 4, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060403034.html (Retrieved April 24, 2019).

6 Steve Weatherbe, “‘A mass sterilization exercise’.’”

7 J. A. Miller, “Are New Vaccines Laced with Birth-Control Drugs?” Human Life International Reports, June/July 1995, Vol 13, No. 8, http://www.whale.to/vaccine/miller5.html (Retrieved April 24, 2019). 

8 using only pregnancy kits Julie Milstien, P David Griffin and J-W Lee, “Damage to Immunisation Programmes from Misinformation on Contraceptive Vaccines,” Reproductive Health Matters, Vol. 3, No. 6, Nov., 1995, 24–28.

name change “Reproductive Health Matters becomes Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters,” SRHM.org, Feb. 26, 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20190226185627/http://www.srhm.org (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

9 all four vials tested positive . . . WHO had no answers . A. Miller, “Are New Vaccines Laced with Birth-Control Drugs?” Human Life International Reports, June/July 1995.

result of false positive reacions “Damage to Immunisation Programmes,” Reproductive Health Matters.

rare contamination Abby Ohiheiser, “The tense standoff between Catholic bishops and the Kenyan government over tetanus vaccines,” Washington Post, Nov. 14, 2014.

10 Elise Knutsen, “Israel Forcibly Injected African Immigrants with Birth Control, Report Claims,” Forbes, Jan. 28, 2013, https://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseknutsen/2013/01/28/israel-foribly-injected-african-immigrant-women-with-birth-control/#7e99e37c67b8 (Retrieved April 25, 2019). 

11 Gregory Warner, “Catholic Bishops in Kenya Call For A Boycott of Polio Vaccines,” NPR, Aug. 9, 2015, https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/08/09/430347033/catholic-bishops-in-kenya-call-for-a-boycott-of-polio-vaccines (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

12 Jonas Salk, The Survival of the Wisest (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 42–43. For a full review of this book, see Jay Dyer’s video/audio podcast, “Why does the Father of Mass Vaccinations Jonas Salk want to Kill Everyone?” JaysAnalysis.com, Jan. 29, 2019, https://jaysanalysis.com/2019/01/29/why-does-the-father-of-mass-vaccinations-jonas-salk-want-to-kill-everyone-partial (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

13 Jonas Salk, The Survival of the Wisest, 69–70, 52.

14 joint statement . . . Matercare bby Ohiheiser, “The tense standoff between Catholic bishops and the Kenyan government over tetanus vaccines.” 

15 police escort Steve Weatherbe, “‘A mass sterilization exercise’.’”

 a scheme . . . no trace “Kenyan gvmt launches probe into claim UN is using vaccines for ‘mass sterilization,’” Life Site News, Nov. 12, 2014, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kenyan-gvmt-launches-probe-into-claim-un-is-using-vaccines-for-mass-sterili (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

16 switched sides . . . was not right teve Weatherbe, “Kenyan debate over lab results shows need for new tests on UN tetanus vaccine,” Life Site News, Nov. 25, 2014, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kenyan-debate-over-lab-results-shows-need-for-new-tests-on-un-tetanus-vacci (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

except for two samples Steve Weatherbe, “‘A mass sterilization exercise’.’”

17 Steve Weatherbe, “Kenyan gvmt launches probe.” 

18 “The tense standoff between Catholic bishops and the Kenyan government over tetanus vaccines,” The Washington Post,“ Nov. 14, 2014.

19 3 of 59 vials Steve Weatherbe, “Kenyan bishops still wary despite new tests showing no sterilizing agent in UN vaccines,” Life Site News, Jan. 16, 2015, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/kenyan-bishops-still-wary-despite-new-tests-showing-no-sterilizing-agent-in (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

40 more vials . . . delayed the report “Kenya Catholic Bishops: ‘We insist that no further mass tetanus vaccination campaigns should be undertaken in Kenya,’” Outbreak News Today, Jan. 18, 2015, http://outbreaknewstoday.com/kenya-catholic-bishops-we-insist-that-no-further-mass-tetanus-vaccination-campaigns-should-be-undertaken-in-kenya-18049 (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

20 Christina England, “Mass Sterilization of Millions of African Girls through Tetanus Vaccine Scandal Broadens as Kenyan Laboratory Attacked,” Health Impact News. Feb. 12, 2018, https://healthimpactnews.com/2018/mass-sterilization-of-millions-of-african-girls-through-tetanus-vaccine-scandal-broadens-as-kenyan-laboratory-attacked (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

 “License of Industrial lab Agriq-Quest Suspended,” Business Daily Africa, Jan. 12, 2017, https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News/Licence-of-industrial-lab-Agriq-Quest-suspended/539550-3515280-j78flcz (Retrieved April 25, 2019.

David Mikkelson, “Is Tetanus Vaccine Spiked with Sterilization Chemicals?” Snopes, Nov. 10, 2014 (Updated April 18, 2018); 

21 “Mass Sterilization of Millions of African Girls through Tetanus Vaccine Scandal Broadens as Kenyan Laboratory Attacked,” Health Impact News. Feb. 12, 2018.

22 intentionally sterilizing “Kenya – Thousands infertile after gov’t sponsored vaccination – Odinga,” Agence de Presse Africaine, Sept. 11, 2017, http://apanews.net/en/pays/kenya/news/kenya-thousands-infertile-after-govt-sponsored-vaccination-odinga (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

will continue to test . . . fears are goundless teve Weatherbe, “Kenyan bishops still wary . . . ,” Life Site News, Jan. 16, 2015.

23 Anhubhuti Vishnoi, “Centre shuts health mission gate on Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,” The Economic Times, Feb. 9, 2017, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/centre-shuts-gate-on-bill-melinda-gates-foundation/articleshow/57028697.cms (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

24 they did it in South America Steve Weatherbe, “Kenyan bishops still wary . . . .” 

unresolved “The tense standoff between Catholic bishops and the Kenyan government over tetanus vaccines,” The Washington Post,“ Nov. 14, 2014.

conspiracy-minded David Mikkelson, “Is Tetanus Vaccine Spiked with Sterilization Chemicals?” Snopes, Nov. 10, 2014 (Updated April 18, 2018).

25 Alana Goodman, “Facebook ‘fact checker’ who will arbitrate on ‘fake news’ is accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes - and its staff includes an escort-porn star and ‘Vice Vixen dome,’” Daily Mail, Dec. 21, 2016, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

26 Kalev, Leetaru, “The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers,” Forbes, Dec. 22, 2016, https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#60754448227f (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

27 “denouncing” is actually the word rubbishing. “Kenyan bishops still wary despite new tests showing no sterilizing agent in UN vaccines,” Life Site News, Jan. 16, 2015.

28 Ross Douthat, “Eugenics, Past and Future,” New York Times, June 9, 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/douthat-eugenics-past-and-future.html (Retrieved April 25, 2019).

Is it time for Kings to replace Democracy? Four arguments from a Christian viewpoint.

Is it time for Kings to replace Democracy? Four arguments from a Christian viewpoint.

(Originally published May, 2016)

Same-sex marriage. Abortion and infanticide by the millions. Brazen occult imagery at the Olympic ceremonies, the Grammy Awards, and the Oscars. Teaching sodomy to our five year olds in public schools. Allowing monuments to Satan in public places. The body politic seems to have gone insane.

While the idea of restoring monarchism to government may sound a bit over the top, considering how bad things have gotten, any idea is worth considering these days, no matter how ancient or odd.

We were raised with stories about how kings were terrible tyrants. But does that justify doing away with monarchy in general? Did we throw out the baby with the bathwater? The arguments behind our revolutions to overthrow and even kill kings—are they biblical, or did they come from a different source?

Olympic ceremony in London features burning Lucifer topped by a masonic compass.

Olympic ceremony in London features burning Lucifer topped by a masonic compass.

I did not write this article expecting to persuade many people to become monarchists. I am not one, at least not yet. However, monarchism is a concept still alive and well in the circles of Eastern Orthodoxy, of which I am a member. Because of that, and because of how bankrupt our current system has become, I am willing to entertain the concept.

Because Christians claim to base their beliefs on the bible, this article becomes quite relevant, it seems to me.

And the idea is not as far-fetched as one may think. A couple of years ago, members of parliament for the Republic of Georgia discussed returning to a monarchy. “I’m for a parliamentary republic. I’m also for the possibility of restoring the constitutional monarchy here,” said Freedom Party leader Koka Gamsakhurdia.

His comments came in response to the Georgian Patriarch calling for a restoration of  their king in November of 2013: “The Bagrationi Dynasty was terminated in 1801, and since then Georgian people have nurtured a dream to restore the ancient, divinely blessed dynasty,” he said.

Georgian patriarch Illia II

Georgian patriarch Illia II

According to a poll taken around that same time in Russia, 28 percent of citizens would like to see a return of the Czar. A former member of Parliament formed the Monarchist Party there in 2012.

Regardless of how realistic the idea may be, all Christians should be interested in what the Bible says on the matter.

(Note: This article is an attempt to lay out the plausibility for monarchy. I did not seek to provide “equal time” for democracy. I’m letting 500 years of western civilization do that job.)

(Also, I realize that there are democracies, republics, and democratic republics. I know the difference, but the terms are used here interchangeably.)

1. The bible clearly acknowledges monarchy. Nowhere does it endorse or even mention republics or democracies.

For those of you smart enough to know the arguments, we will get to I Samuel 8 in a minute. Otherwise, the Scriptures seem quite vocal in support of Kings.

Since the New Testament interprets the Old, let’s start there:

“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.” (I Peter 2:13-14)

“Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.” (I Peter 2:17)

“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.” (I Tim. 2:1-2)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as the “King” and the “King of kings.” He is not referred to as a president, chairman, prime minister, spokesperson, or figurehead.

Jesus and the Apostles knew about democracy. According to Fr. Joseph Gleason (Antiochian Orthodox, Omaha, Iliniois): “In the New Testament, many people spoke Greek, and the entire Roman empire was deeply influenced by the Greek culture, which had already been aware of democracy for over 500 years. Yet, Jesus and the apostles never suggest that we should replace monarchies with democracies (or with any other form of government).”

Early Christians defied Rome’s edicts but never revolted or called for a removal of the Emperor.

Early Christians defied Rome’s edicts but never revolted or called for a removal of the Emperor.

Gleason provides a nice list (very minimal) of Old Testament endorsements of monarchism:

  • In Genesis 14, King Melchizedek prophetically acts out the first proto-Eucharist in Scripture, blessing Abraham with bread and wine.

  • In Genesis 17, God promises to bless Abraham with kings for descendants.

  • In Genesis 35, God promises to bless Jacob with kings for descendants.

  • In Genesis 49, God promises that Israel’s kings will come from the tribe of Judah.

  • In Deuteronomy 17, Moses lays out the blueprint for Israel to have godly kings.

  • In 1 Samuel 2, Hannah prophesies about the coming monarchy (verse 10) in a very positive context, focusing on the Lord’s anointed monarch.

  • When Israel’s kings are very good, Scripture never suggests that
    they should have been “good enough to abolish
    monarchy, and establish some better form of government”.

  • Similarly, when Israel’s kings are very wicked, Scripture never suggests that “being a king” was part of their sin.

Melchizedek-oval-300x289.png

Proverbs 24:21 best sums up the biblical argument against the overthrow of monarchism: “Fear the LORD and the king, my son, and do not join with rebellious officials.”

2. Samuel did not rebuke Israel for wanting a king

Biblicists who oppose monarchy are quick to turn to I Samuel 8, as it is the best passage, if not the only passage, that provides some kind of rationale for something other than a monarchical government.

In the story, Samuel has led Israel well for decades as a “judge,” not a king, but his sons are corrupt, and the elders insist that Samuel install “a king to judge us like all the nations.” Samuel is displeased, prays about it, and God tells him to do what they asked. “They have not rejected you, but rejected me,” God says, “that I should not reign over them.” (I Sam. 8:7)

On it’s face, this passage seems to provide nice ammo for refuting monarchism, but it has a number of serious weaknesses.

♦ Firstly, it is strange for Israel to get rebuked for wanting a king when a few hundred years before Moses laid out some rules for kings in Israel: “When you come to the land … and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses.” (Deut. 17:14-15)

♦ Secondly, Israel wasn’t rebuked for wanting a king. They were rebuked for wanting a king “like all the nations.” (This seems to fit with the previous point that God had already made proscriptions for a king.) Biblical scholar James Jordan points out that this phrase “like all the nations” can mean, in the original language, two possible things.

1: A king, as other nations have kings.
2. A king that acts like other nations’s kings, not one tied to Moses’s code of laws.

Israel-asks-for-king-text-300x225.jpg

Jordan believes, because of the context of the passage, and Deut. 17, that the elders of Israel were asking for the second option. And this explains the verses surrounding both Deut 17 and I Sam. 8, warning against kings multiplying horses, gold, and wives. Other nations’ kings built military machines (horses), heavily taxed their subjects (gold), and sported large harems. Moses and Samuel both warn Israel’s king not to go in that direction.

♦ Thirdly, the days of Israel’s judges was no panacea for godly society. The book ends with a woman being raped in front of her passive husband, who then chops her up and sends the pieces to the twelve tribes to point out how corrupt things had gotten. The book is filled with similar atrocities. Judges ends by saying, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” (21:25). According to Gleason, “the lack of monarchy implies anarchy.  The consciences of the populous were insufficient for bringing righteousness to the nation. A godly king was needed.”

♦ Fourthly, one of the reasons the Israelites were rejecting God by asking for a king was because to do so, at that time, would be violating the mosaic law. Jacob declared at the end of his life, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah.” (Gen. 49:10). The Israelites

Judah and Tamar (from Tamar of the Terebinths)

Judah and Tamar (from Tamar of the Terebinths)

knew their king was to come from Judah, but that tribe was temporarily disqualified due to sexual immorality: “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation.” (Deut. 23:2)

Judah had slept with his daughter-in-law Tamar (unwittingly—she posed as a prostitute), and she gave birth to Perez (see Gen. 38, a rather bizarre interruption to an otherwise thrilling drama about Joseph). The tribe of Judah was in it’s ninth generation when the elders of Israel demanded a king. Saul had to be taken from another tribe, Benjamin. But he was replaced a generation later by David, from the tribe of Judah, who was now qualified to be king.

The writer of Ruth makes this crystal clear at the very end of the book, naming ten generations from Perez to David: “Now this is the genealogy of Perez: Perez begot Hezron; Hezron begot Ram, and Ram begot Amminadab; Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon; Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed; Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David. (Ruth 4:13-22)

Pretty cool, huh? (Jordan explains this point well in the podcast link already provided, and Gleason writes about it here.)

♦ Lastly, those who use I Samuel 8 to argue against monarchy certainly cannot use it to argue for democratic republics as we know them today. The system under Samuel was a theocracy, a nation under specific laws from God. Whatever is argued for today, whether it be democracies, republics, loose confederations, or pseudo-anarchism, to argue that Israel before its monarchy modeled the ideal government is to argue for something even more radical for today’s sensibilities than monarchy. A few actually do this, but everyone else needs to chill a little bit.

Fr. John Whiteford, an Orthodox priest in Texas (ROCOR), wraps up his excellent article on this topic with this conclusion: “So one could argue that the most ideal form of government is a theocracy, but as the history of Israel up to this point demonstrated, such a theocracy only worked out well for the people when they were zealous to obey God, which very often was not the case. So monarchy is perhaps the second best system of government, but not one without problems … because for monarchy to work out well, you need a king that is pious.”

3. The early church fathers support monarchy.

Gregory the Theologian

Gregory the Theologian

For those who know that anybody can make the bible say just about anything (including Christians wanting to kill kings and foment revolution), it is always helpful, indeed necessary, to consult the early church fathers’ interpretation.

As previously mentioned, Christians of the early centuries knew all about democracy. But it is never endorsed as an option.

“Monarchy is superior to every other constitution and form of government. For polyarchy, where everyone competes on equal terms, is really anarchy and discord.” —Eusebius of Caesaria (4th Century)

“The three most ancient opinions about God are atheism (or anarchy), polytheism (or polyarchy), and monotheism (or monarchy). The children of Greece played with the first two; let us leave them to their games. For anarchy is disorder: and polyarchy implies factious division, and therefore anarchy and disorder. Both these lead in the same direction – to disorder; and disorder leads to disintegration; for disorder is the prelude to disintegration. What we honour is monarchy”—St. Gregory the Theologian (4th Century)

In the 14th Century, St. Gregory of Palamas encountered a movement of revolution and democracy that he condemned:

St. John of Kronstadt

St. John of Kronstadt

“God has counted the Emperors worthy to rule over His inheritance, over His earthly Church.”

A more recent saint, John of Kronstadt, put it more tersely:

“Hell is a democracy. Heaven is a kingdom.”

However one may try to develop a theory of democracy over monarchism, he will not get there by citing the church fathers.

4. Monarchists can also claim to “know them by their fruit.”

A common argument by Christians is that you “can know them by their fruit” as Jesus famously said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:16).  While the sins of various monarchs are well known to history, it is worth noting that democracy and republicanism has it’s own load of dirty laundry. These facts may not be enough to win the argument for monarchy, but they may at least keep things at a stalemate.

Starting with democracy’s best case, the American experiment, the movement cannot be described as thoroughly rooted in Christianity. Yes, the Declaration mentions “nature’s God,” but nowhere else is the Deity acknowledged, though some resort to the Constitution citing “A.D. 1789” as acknowledging the Latin “In the year of our Lord.”

Declaration rights of man by Jean-Jacques-François Le Barbier, featuring the All Seeing Eye, was prominently featured to the public during the French Revolution.

Declaration rights of man by Jean-Jacques-François Le Barbier, featuring the All Seeing Eye, was prominently featured to the public during the French Revolution.

Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were masons, a universalist religion that, like the founding documents, has no interest in naming that most controversial of names, Jesus Christ.

The American Revolution was rooted, not in explicit Christianity, but in the Reason of the Enlightenment, best demonstrated politically during the French Revolution and it’s charter the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Thought leaders of this movement were implicit, if not explicit, atheists, usually quite hostile to Jesus Christ.

Jean Jeacques Rousseau: “Christ preached only servitude and dependence … True Christians are made to be slaves.”

Voltaire: “Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.”

Denis Diderot: “Man will only be free when the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

While Enlightenment political thought was less violent in America, the French Revolution was a bloodbath that ended in tyranny. And it’s philosophical heirs, particularly Russia’s Bolshevism, lay claim to the greatest genocides in human history. According to cultural and philosophical critic Jay Dyer:

French King Louis XVI embraces his children before his execution by guillotine.

French King Louis XVI embraces his children before his execution by guillotine.

“French Revolutionary demagogues, such as Danton, Robespierre, the Duke of Orleans, Marat, and St. Just, were all members of secret societies and Illuminist orders. Many communists leaders such as Vladimir Lenin were also “Illuminists.’ Through infiltrating Freemasonry, many of these bloody men were also inducted into a deeper, darker society within the ranks known as the Illuminati.”

“The Illuminati had been formed in 1776 by an ex-Jesuit canon lawyer named Adam Weishaupt, in Bavaria. Weishaupt, who was immersed in rationalism, intended to organize an elite group that would eventually install a one-world, socialistic order and abolish theology. Weishaupt seems to have been the key ideological figure behind the revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries that ultimately removed all forms of monarchy and effectively cut off Christianity from having any cultural influence.”

Modern governments have no contract with God but rather claim a “social contract” between the government and its subjects. Instead of God being the highest authority, that role now belongs to “the people.”

Jesus Christ is not part of the contract. Compare this to the vows made by a King such as Russia’s Czar Nicholas II at his coronation:

“May my heart be in Thy hand, to accomplish all that is to the profit of the people committed to my charge and to Thy glory, that so in the day of Thy judgment I may give Thee account of my stewardship without blame; through the grace and mercy of Thy Son, Who was once crucified for us, to Whom be all honor and glory with Thee and the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, unto ages of ages. Amen.”

Christian monarchs are compelled by their vows before God himself to serve the people of their country and fight for their best interests. Masons take “secret vows” that allow their oaths as leaders of nations to be trumped by what they and their ilk may consider a more important, global agenda that supercedes the interests of the nation-state they serve. (Orthodox Christianity does not, by its own laws and traditions, allow masons to become members of the church. See here and here.)

Czar Nicholas II and his entire family were murdered by the Bolsheviks four years after this photo was taken in 1913.

Czar Nicholas II and his entire family were murdered by the Bolsheviks four years after this photo was taken in 1913.

A school of thought quite prominent in Eastern Orthodox tradition is the concept of the King serving as the earthly “restrainer of evil” against Satan’s continual effort to bring Anti-Christ thinking and leaders to prominence. As the Apostle says in II Thess. 2:7:

“The mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.”

Prominent Church Father John Chrysostom identifies this “Restrainer” as the head of the Roman Empire. Some continue that tradition by identifying the Czar of Russia as the Emperor of the “Third Rome,” (First Rome, then Constantinople when Rome fell, than Russia when the Byzantine Empire fell). “Czar” is a shortened version of “Caesar.” Their arguments are not weakened by the 100 million estimated murders committed by the Bolsheviks and their followers after the murder of Czar Nicholas II and his family in 1917.

While both Monarchism and other forms of government have “fruits”

on both sides of the equation, writers like Vladimir Moss believe monarchy has the better record for both Christians and humanity:

Read The Third Rome online.

Read The Third Rome online.

“Of course, no political system can ensure permanent stability—the human race is fallen and mutable by nature. Nevertheless, logic suggests and history demonstrates that monarchies have been much more stable than democracies in their adherence to Christian faith and morality. The history of democracy since the French Revolution shows an ever-accelerating decline in faith and morality, and an ever-expanding undermining of the natural hierarchical relations that God has placed in human society, whether these be between parents and children, husbands and wives, teachers and pupils, or political rulers and their subjects. And by undermining these natural heirarchical relations, it implicitly undermines the most important heirarchical relationship of all, that between God and man. The Orthodox monarchy, on the other hand, strengthens all these relationships, and orients society as a whole to spiritual goals rather than the exclusively secular and material goals of contemporary democracy.”

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, these four arguments set forth here are not expected to win the day politically any time soon. I’m not even willing to say that I am a monarchist. However, I do believe that the case for democracy is not air tight, if the starting point is the Scriptures or church tradition. And the way things are going today in the U.S. and the west, every idea, however old or shocking, needs to be reconsidered as an option.

Meanwhile, Fr. Michael Azkoul provides an excellent charge for Orthodox Christians that applies to all Christians today:

“ … an Orthodox Christian is faced with the dilemma of living in a society which is basically hostile and alien to him. Of course, we must honor the president, obey just laws and do no harm to any man. Yet we cannot allow ourselves to become an intrinsic part of secular society. The early Christians were accused of being ‘anti-social’ because they would not become involved in the affairs of the pagan Roman Empire, so we must expect the same reproach.”

Saint Helen with her son Constantine, Emperor of Rome, who ended the persecution of Christians.

Saint Helen with her son Constantine, Emperor of Rome, who ended the persecution of Christians.

Bill Gates, Eugenics, Vaccines, and Planned Parenthood

Bill Gates, Eugenics, Vaccines, and Planned Parenthood

Bill’s great-grandfather on his mother’s side, J. W. Maxwell, founded Seattle’s National City Bank in 1906. He was “the director Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Seattle Branch.” His fortune left little Bill a trust fund worth millions in today’s dollars. Bill is an elitist. His father, William Gates, Sr., is actually William the Third, but, for some unknown reason, he changed his name to Junior. So, the billionaire Bill Gates, who was a multimillionaire at birth, is actually William Henry Gates IV

The Late Dan Martino was a Legend. And a Basketcase.

The Late Dan Martino was a Legend. And a Basketcase.

Martino earned his first 15 minutes of fame for a sign at the GOP convention in Atlanta that said, “God is a Republican.” A few weeks later, he held a sign at the Democrat Convention in New Orleans: “AIDS is a Cure, Not a Disease,” . . . But he lost all credibility in 1992 when he admitted to 45 homosexual encounters the previous two years.